[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 43 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1096-S1105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


            unanimous consent agreement--executive calendar

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask that the 
motion to reconsider with respect to the Pagan nomination be considered 
made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer 
a few remarks about claims that have been made on this floor over the 
course of the last few days regarding the path forward to American 
energy independence.
  The oil industry--reaping record profits in the billions of dollars--
is taking advantage, quite artfully, of the crisis in Ukraine to make 
arguments to the U.S. Congress and this administration that they should 
be given new liberties to drill on lands in the United States to be 
able to reap even greater profits.
  And the claim that the oil industry makes that is often parroted by 
friends inside this body is that the path to American energy 
independence runs through drilling for more oil in the United States of 
America. That is not true. That is an oil industry talking point. That 
is a means by which the industry can get Congress and the 
administration to provide them with new opportunities for more profit.
  But the facts belie the argument that America could achieve energy 
independence solely through drilling for more oil and exploring for 
more gas in the United States. Why do we know this? Well, we know this, 
primarily, because the oil industry doesn't drill in the United States 
to benefit our national security. They drill in the United States to 
make money. And the reality is, when the price of a barrel of oil is 
too low compared to the cost of pulling it out of the ground in the 
United States, the oil companies don't drill. Right now, for instance, 
the oil industry has thousands of leases to drill on public lands that 
they are not utilizing.
  As you would hear it on the floor of the Senate, the failure to be 
energy independent is Joe Biden's fault because he is not providing for 
any new leases on public lands. Well, you do not need any new leases on 
public lands because there are thousands of leases that the oil 
industry already has to drill that they just are not using. There is 
nothing in the ground. There is no oil coming up. And the reason for 
that is, well, the economy was in shambles, so there wasn't demand; the 
price of oil was down so that the companies didn't see a big enough 
profit; there is a general workforce shortage right now in the 
industry. But none of those reasons are Joe Biden. Those are market-
based reasons why the oil industry has not been drilling on land they 
already own.
  The second reason why there is not a path to energy independence 
through drilling alone is because the oil that we drill in the United 
States, it doesn't stay in the United States. Some of it does, but much 
of it gets exported. In 2020, we were drilling about 18 million barrels 
a day in the United States. About half of that was shipped overseas. 
Only half of that stayed in the United States. I wanted to make sure 
that wasn't something we needed to pay closer attention to.
  The oil that we drill in the United States doesn't stay here. It goes 
to the highest bidder. In fact, often, the oil we drill in the United 
States is going to China. For as hard as my friends on the other side 
of the aisle say we should be on China, the reality is, during some 
months of the last several years, America was sending record amounts of 
oil from U.S. oil production facilities to the Chinese Government.
  It just isn't true that there is a path to American energy security 
simply by drilling for more oil in the United States. That oil only 
comes out of the ground when the price is high enough. The oil industry 
doesn't drill to be patriotic. They drill to make money. And there is 
never a guarantee that that oil or that gas stays in the United States; 
much of it is sent overseas.
  As I mentioned, there is also no argument to be made credibly that 
Joe Biden is waging some war on American energy independence.
  The two biggest changes that are often cited that the President made: 
One is, as I referenced, this pause on new leases on public lands. That 
just has very little impact because, first of all, very little of the 
oil that the industry drills is on public lands. Only 10 percent of the 
oil the industry drills is on public lands. Ninety percent of it is on 
privately held lands, so a pause on 10 percent of the leases just 
doesn't have a macro effect on oil drilling.
  Second, any leases that the administration would give out right now, 
they don't end up in drilling occurring for years. So whether or not we 
are pausing or not pausing leases on 10 percent of the opportunities to 
drill in the United States, that has an impact years from now, not 
today.
  The argument is, ``Well, the President stopped the Keystone Pipeline 
from going into effect.'' Same thing. The Keystone Pipeline was years 
out; and, second, most of the Keystone Pipeline oil wasn't staying in 
the United States. Most of that oil was going to be shipped overseas.
  There is a reason why the Keystone Pipeline was ending up near the 
terminals in the Gulf that ended up sending oil to places other than 
the United States. Once again, the Keystone Pipeline was not a 
guarantee for American energy independence; that was a guarantee that 
the majority of that oil was going to end up in some other country.
  And so if you are serious about energy independence, then you are not 
serious if you are talking about getting there through drilling. This 
is not a serious solution, because the facts tell you that the drilling 
only happens when the oil industry makes enough money and that the 
lion's share, at least half of that oil and gas, can end up going 
overseas, not to American consumers.
  Do you know how you do make this country energy independent? 
Investing in renewables, because we don't ship wind power overseas. We 
don't ship solar energy overseas. When a wind turbine is running in 
Iowa or a solar panel is generating energy in California, that energy 
goes straight onto the American grid. That energy stays right here in 
the United States.
  Now, it also has a tremendous benefit of being clean energy, of not 
contributing to the warming of the planet. That alone is a good enough 
reason to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuel energy, but 
renewable energy also has the benefit of being truly domestic energy; 
truly secure, American-only energy, as opposed to fossil fuels, which 
only get turned on when the price is high enough and often end up 
leaving the United States to other countries.
  Those are the facts. The oil industry delights when crises like this 
occur and the prices go up at the pump, and friends of theirs come down 
and claim that the only path to energy independence is through more 
drilling. But the problem is it just isn't true.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
our Nation's energy policy and the crisis that we find ourselves in as 
the cost of energy continues to go up and up and up.
  Right now, gas prices are nearly double what they were the day that 
Joe Biden became President of the United States.
  So you ask: Why is this happening? That is what consumers, that is 
what

[[Page S1097]]

people in my home State of Wyoming are asking about. What has happened? 
How is it that it has gone up so much?
  Sure, there is the war in Ukraine, but the prices have been going up 
day by day by day after Joe Biden became President, and the reason, I 
tell people at home, is because Joe Biden has declared war on American 
energy--the policies of this administration, the policies of the 
Democrats in this body and across the way in the House.
  On day No. 1, Joe Biden shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline; he shut 
down oil and gas leases on Federal lands; and he shut down the 
exploration for energy in the Arctic.
  My colleague the senior Senator from Alaska, who previously had 
chaired the Energy Committee in the Senate, has said that we are 
actually, in the United States, using more energy from Russia, more oil 
from Russia than we are from Alaska, her home State, a State in the 
United States.
  Now we see the President's appointees making it almost impossible to 
build gas pipelines. So even if you were able to explore and discover 
energy--oil, gas--you can't get it to market because they are blocking 
pipelines all across the country.
  And the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--just a week 
and a half ago revised its guidelines to make it even tougher.
  They talk about oil and gas leases. Once you get a lease--you pay for 
a lease to explore for energy--you have to come to the government for 
permission to drill for it. You actually have to pay money to apply for 
permission to drill. It is actually called an Application for Permit to 
Drill. And the Biden administration last month said, ``We are not going 
to give you any more of those,'' to anybody who wants to explore for 
energy on public lands. And, in fact, there are about 4,600 of those 
stuck in limbo right now.
  In my home State of Wyoming and across the country, people are 
asking: How can a President put such a radical and self-destructive 
agenda which we have to live under?
  And what I tell them and what they understand is that the Biden 
administration is completely controlled by the climate elitists, the 
climate alarmists who dictate the policies of the Democratic Party in 
this country.
  So just look at Joe Biden's climate czar. Now, that is kind of a 
nickname for the position, but the reality of the title is the U.S. 
Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. It is John Kerry. So this is a 
very high position in this administration.
  He didn't come to the Senate for confirmation. Oh, no. They wouldn't 
risk putting something like that up here because then John Kerry would 
have to answer questions.
  But John Kerry, no question about it, does speak for the 
administration. Joe Biden appointed him. John Kerry and Joe Biden 
served together in the Senate, in this body. I served with both of them 
on the Foreign Relations Committee. John Kerry was a previous Secretary 
of State of the United States at the time that Joe Biden was Vice 
President of the United States.
  So the position of John Kerry is also the position of this 
administration, otherwise, why would he be the Special Presidential 
Envoy for Climate? When John Kerry speaks, it is Joe Biden whom he 
speaks for.
  Well, John Kerry and this administration have a delusional obsession, 
and their delusional obsession is with climate. John Kerry and this 
administration are so obsessed with our climate that they believe it is 
more important than our energy security and than our national security.
  Now, there are countless examples. And I just want to go through a 
couple of them that have occurred just within the last 3 weeks, just 
within the time that Vladimir Putin's soldiers have encircled Ukraine 
and now have attacked Ukraine, continuing to kill innocent civilians.
  The night before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, with the troops at 
the ready, John Kerry actually told the BBC in an interview that he was 
worried about the carbon emissions that would result from the war--the 
carbon emissions, not the death, not the destruction, not the 
suffering; no, the carbon emissions.
  He also said--I mean, it is astonishing. People listened, and they 
said: This can't be the position of the administration of the President 
of the United States. But yet it is the position of John Kerry, the 
President's Special Envoy, that war would be a distraction, would 
distract from the climate agenda.
  John Kerry went on to say this. He said:

       I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with 
     respect to what we need to do for the climate.

  Let me repeat. John Kerry, Special Envoy, speaking for the President 
of the United States:

       I hope President Putin will help us stay on track with 
     respect to what we need to do for the climate.

  John Kerry believes, by his statements and others that I will get to, 
that what is happening with the war in Europe is a distraction from the 
real issue of the day, the key issue--climate change.
  People are being murdered in the streets, Vladimir Putin is 
conducting nuclear drills, and the President's key spokesman on issues 
affecting energy in this country is hoping that President Putin will 
help us stay on track, and what is happening there is a distraction.
  This is absurd. John Kerry thinks that Vladimir Putin cares about the 
climate? It is impossible. Putin just yesterday bombed a maternity 
ward. Putin's forces have killed dozens of children. Yet John Kerry is 
desperately waiting by the phone, clinging to the hope of a phone call 
from Vladimir Putin.
  I hope John Kerry isn't holding his breath waiting for Putin to 
address the issue of climate.
  Now, in the very same interview, John Kerry was asked about the 
possibility that Russia would invade Ukraine.
  John Kerry's answer is this. The former Secretary of State, former 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: ``I thought we lived 
in a world that said no to that kind of [thing].'' What kind of a world 
is John Kerry living in? Sounds like a nice place. It is not the real 
world--not the world we live in, not the world that is right now 
wreaking havoc on the people of Ukraine.
  The fact that John Kerry, the President's spokesman on issues of 
climate, said this out loud in public just shows that John Kerry and 
this administration--in terms of their position on energy and energy 
security and national security, it must put them in the position of 
being the most naive people on the face of the Earth. John Kerry flying 
around the world in his private jet, representing the administration, 
worrying about the carbon emissions of a war, whereas we know as of now 
that thousands of innocent people already have or will lose their 
lives.
  Then on Monday, just 3 days ago, I believe John Kerry made it worse. 
At that point, the tanks were in the streets, Russia was on the attack, 
people were dying, and millions of people have left the country of 
Ukraine, seeking asylum, seeking help, seeking relief, going across the 
border, seeking humanitarian care, and John Kerry, in a heartless 
statement, said the 2 million Ukrainian refugees were nothing--John 
Kerry--nothing in comparison to the refugees who will flee a warmer 
climate someday. Someday. Two million refugees--nothing compared to 
what may happen someday with climate change.
  This is the world's largest refugee crisis in the last 70 years, 
since World War II. There are 2 million Ukrainians now displaced, 
trying to get out of the country of Ukraine, some losing their lives--
they think they are going on safe corridors--being killed by Putin as 
he bombs them as they think they have safe passage.
  John Kerry doesn't seem to be impressed, which, to me, means Joe 
Biden is not impressed; the administration is not impressed because Joe 
Biden has allowed John Kerry to continue to this very day, to this very 
moment, to speak for this administration as the climate envoy.
  John Kerry should be fired. If he is not, he continues to speak for 
the President of the United States because John Kerry--which means this 
administration is more concerned about a hypothetical event in the 
future than what is happening on the face of the Earth right now.
  This is an obsession. This is delusional. And the obsession explains 
a lot. It explains why this White House

[[Page S1098]]

always puts environmental fantasies ahead of American security and 
American energy. That is what we are seeing. This administration puts 
climate ahead of jobs. It puts climate ahead of bringing prices down. 
It puts climate ahead of working families. The administration puts 
climate ahead of our allies. We have sky-high gas prices, the highest 
of all time. You know, we see inflation is the highest in 40 years. We 
got the new bad inflation numbers again today, which are hurting our 
families. We can't keep up. Wages can't keep up. A 40-year high 
inflation but the worst of all time highest gas prices ever. We have 
the worst prices in Europe in decades and decades and decades. And the 
Biden administration won't even consider--won't even consider--
producing more American energy.
  Earlier today--today--Reuters reported the White House has decided 
not to boost exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe. They are 
pleading for it. They want it. We have it. We have it in abundance. 
Now, the administration won't let us build the pipelines to move it, 
won't let us explore for it, but we have plenty of it here in the 
United States. They are desperate, and they are trying to break the 
ties they have to Russia.
  The report from Reuters today says: ``The White House was weighing 
the announcement of . . . ways to boost LNG exports to Europe . . . 
However''--however; wait a minute, not going to happen--``the 
interagency review has been shelved . . . after some in the White House 
argued''--some in the White House argued; not a supply and demand 
issue--and I see the junior Senator from Maine here, who talks about a 
supply and demand issue with regard to LNG. Oh, no. Those in the White 
House argued that ``it would counter the administration's efforts.'' 
Letting our friends and colleagues in Europe who need our LNG, of which 
we have an abundance--oh, no. ``[I]t would counter the administration's 
efforts to wean the U.S. off fossil fuels.''
  Once again, this White House, with John Kerry the spokesman and it 
looks like Joe Biden the lapdog--whatever John Kerry says, we are going 
to do--has put climate before our national security and before our 
energy security.
  It is time for the administration to get its priorities straight, and 
it is time to remove John Kerry from this position. It is time for Joe 
Biden to wake up and to speak up. The climate elitists have done 
tremendous damage to our Nation and are continuing to do damage to our 
allies. For ourselves and for our allies, it is time to produce more 
American energy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Wyoming will stay so 
we might have a discussion.
  Why has the price of gasoline gone up? Why did it start going up 
about the same time that Joe Biden became President? Was it because of 
the cancelation of the Keystone Pipeline? No. Most of the oil going 
through the Keystone Pipeline was scheduled to be exported, so I don't 
think that was it. Was it a pause in leases that wouldn't have produced 
oil for 3 or 4 years? No. There are something like 8,000 leases that 
are currently in place that aren't being drilled upon, so I don't think 
that did it.
  Do you know what caused gas prices to go up? The extraordinary 
recovery that the economy went through starting in early 2021, after 
Joe Biden became President--one of the quickest recoveries in our 
history from a recession.
  If you look back to the recession of 2007 and 2008, you see a slow--I 
call it a lazy U. You see a downward of the recession, and then jobs 
and the economy came back very slowly over 5, 6, 7 years. The recession 
recovery from 2021, from the pandemic recession, is a V, and we 
recovered virtually all of the jobs that were lost during the pandemic 
in the last 14 months. GDP has grown as fast as it has in our history. 
The economy came back enormously rapidly.
  Oil was down in 2019 and 2020 because of the pandemic. Demand 
collapsed--this is economics 101--demand collapsed, the price of oil 
collapsed, and then the recovery came, and the demand increased, but 
the production didn't increase.
  Let's talk a little bit about oil in the United States. In 2021, half 
of the oil produced in the United States was exported. Did that do 
anything for our consumers? Did that do anything for the people who 
were paying higher and higher rates for gas?
  The White House doesn't set gas prices. Presidents are always blamed 
for gas prices. I have never heard one given credit when gas prices are 
low. But the truth is, the price of gas depends upon the price of oil, 
and the price of oil depends on the world market, and the price of oil 
in the world market depends upon supply and demand.
  I am old enough to remember the Arab oil embargo in the seventies. 
Why did prices go up so much? Because the OPEC closed down the source, 
and supply dropped, and the price went up. That is economics.
  So what happened during 2021? The price went way up. The oil 
companies made the highest profits they have made in 8 years. What did 
they do with that money? Demand is resurging. There is a need for more 
oil. Prices were going up. What did they do? They put $100 billion into 
buybacks from their stockholders, and they put that much--the 
combination was $100 billion in buybacks and dividends.
  They had a choice. Did they put the money into production, which 
would have reduced the price because we would have higher supply? No. 
They made a deliberate choice to give the money to their stockholders 
to bump up their stock price, which I suspect may have had a positive 
effect on the executive salaries, but they didn't increase production.
  That is why we are in this problem that we are in now with high gas 
prices. Of course, the war in Ukraine has exacerbated that because we 
are cutting off purchases from Russia, which is one of the highest 
producers of oil in the world.
  So if the idea is--you know, I keep hearing my friends on the other 
side trying to blame Joe Biden. If you want to blame him for anything, 
blame him for the quickest recovery from a recession in recorded 
history. And it was the recovery and the increase in demand that wasn't 
met by an increase in production that caused these high prices.
  I read a quote this morning in the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. There was an executive who said: We made a promise to our 
shareholders that we were going to be disciplined and we were going to 
return the money to them.
  He said: I guess the choice came down to keeping our promise to our 
shareholders or being patriotic.
  Well, we know what choice they made.
  So all this talk about the Biden administration's war on oil and it 
is what is causing what is going on at the pump--no. What is causing 
what is going on at the pump is low supply and high demand. That is 
what happened in 1972, that is what is happening now, and that is what 
happens whenever you get supply and demand out of balance.
  As far as exporting LNG to Europe, I am all for trying to help our 
European allies. I am all for it. But we have to do it with open eyes. 
The more we export LNG, the higher the price is going to be here in the 
United States. Seven or eight years ago, the Australians went big into 
exporting LNG, and their domestic natural gas price doubled, and that 
is about what has happened here in this country. Five years ago, we 
exported zero LNG production. Now, it is about 15 percent, but with the 
plants that have been approved, it is going to go up to 25, 30, or 35 
percent. That is going to impact prices here. That is going to be great 
for producers, but it is going to kill the competitive advantage that 
low gas prices gave this country. If it is $13 in China and it is $3 
here, where do you think it is going to go?
  That is what is going on here. This is nothing but economics. We need 
to understand that what has happened is the oil industry made a 
conscious decision last year--and when I say ``conscious decision,'' I 
mean conscious. They had a choice: Do we invest in production and 
increase supply or do we give money to our shareholders in the form of 
dividends and stock buybacks? They chose the latter, and we are reaping 
the fruits of that.
  So I am tired of hearing that somehow a pause in leases on Federal 
land

[[Page S1099]]

that wouldn't have produced any oil for 3 or 4 years is somehow the 
cause of the high prices at the pump. That is nonsense. The cause of 
the high prices at the pump is a lack of supply, and last year--talk 
about energy independence--we exported half the oil that was produced 
in this country.
  We had a vote here 4 or 5 years ago, and we were told: If you allow--
exports of oil were illegal until 4 or 5 years ago. We voted to allow 
it because we were told: Well, this won't really affect us because we 
have an excess of supply. It won't affect prices here in this country.
  Well, that hasn't proven to be the case.
  So what I would like to see is for all of us to work together, to 
think about--I am aware of policies involving pipelines and those kinds 
of things, and I believe that we have to make fuel available and energy 
available to all of our people. But let's be realistic about what is 
going on and not turn it into a partisan issue.
  The only partisan issue here is that we have had a startling and 
extraordinary and, frankly, positive recovery of our economy. But we 
didn't have a recovery of the production of oil, which leads to the 
production of gasoline, which means a shortage, which means higher 
prices.
  So I am delighted to engage in this debate, but I think we really 
ought to be trying to talk about the facts and talk about what is 
really going on here and what is really causing this problem.
  I always want to learn more, and I learn from my colleagues. And I 
noticed that my colleague who just made the speech left, and he didn't 
seem to want to engage on this, which I think is unfortunate. I hope 
that perhaps here in the Senate we could actually have a debate and 
talk about what the issues are and what the reality is and quit just 
casting everything in a partisan way.
  It has gotten to the point that, if Joe Biden walked out of the White 
House and walked across the Potomac River, the other side would say: 
The President can't swim.
  Come on. Let's just talk about reality and not make everything about 
what is good for the administration or bad for the administration. 
Let's talk about what is really happening, and what is really happening 
right now is we have got solid demand in this country. The economy has 
come back, but we don't have enough production to meet that demand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I did listen with great interest to 
every word of my colleague from Maine. We spend time together on the 
Energy Committee. He has lots of very good ideas, and we discuss things 
constructively.
  When we talk about supply and demand, I just find it very interesting 
that for something like natural gas, of which we have an abundance in 
Wyoming--and when I was in the Wyoming State Senate, natural gas prices 
were over $16. With the renaissance of American natural gas energy and 
the production of something called fracking, prices dropped 
dramatically to the kind of numbers that the Senator from Maine 
mentioned earlier--to about $3. It went down, way down.
  That doesn't help the people in Massachusetts, where the price is 
$18, because they can't get permission to have pipelines to deliver the 
affordable gas that we produce here. I mean, it is fascinating to take 
a look at Pennsylvania, which is half the price than in Massachusetts; 
and they are not too far apart. I just went out here, as the Senator 
was speaking, just to take a look and see what the differentials were 
in the prices. The price of natural gas is twice as high in 
Massachusetts as in Pennsylvania when they are less than 200 miles or 
300 miles apart.
  It has nothing to do with the availability of gas in the ground; it 
has to do with the delivery to the end user. That is the result of 
political decisions being made on the ground, in States, to prevent the 
infrastructure to deliver the material, to deliver the natural gas, 
that those people need.
  It was even an issue on the ballot in my colleague's home State of 
Maine to move energy from Canada down to Massachusetts, and it was 
blocked by the voters in Maine, which is their right to do. They have a 
right to make those decisions as to what they want to vote for or 
against. And that was on the transmission of even renewable energy. 
Politics and decisions by either the administration or a State or 
voters make those decisions. So there is an abundance of natural gas, 
and there is a limitation on how you can get it to people because of 
political decisions.
  I heard my colleague mention the number of leases that are out there. 
There are about 9,000 leases the administration continues to talk 
about, saying there are 9,000 leases of which nobody is exploring or 
that drilling hasn't been done.
  Well, that is just the first step of getting a lease. It is like 
leasing an apartment: You pay the rent, but you need a key to get into 
the building. I mean, you pay the rent, and it is your apartment, but 
you can't actually get in until they give you the key. That is the same 
thing that happens here. You need to apply for permission to drill, and 
we know that the administration has said: We are not going to give any 
of those. There is no permission. Sorry. I know you paid for the lease, 
but we are not giving anybody a key. And they did that to about 4,600 
recent leases.
  Normally, some of those decisions are made at a local level but not 
in the Biden administration. Oh, no. Some assistant secretary said: 
Every one of them has to come to me.
  I can get the documentation for the Presiding Officer or for my 
colleague and friend, the Senator from Maine.
  This is a very heavyhanded administration when it comes to exploring 
for American energy, and they continue that way.
  The President, when he was in Glasgow for the climate conference, I 
think surprised many of us when he asked OPEC+--``plus'' being Russia--
to produce and sell more energy to the United States. Over the last 
year, we have averaged about 670,000 barrels a day of oil coming in 
from Russia, which is more than we get from Alaska. The Keystone 
Pipeline, which the President killed on his first day in office, would 
have brought in over 800,000 barrels a day.
  It is not that the President has been shy about the fact that he has 
done all of these things; he has taken great credit. I mean, look at 
the Presidential debates when President Biden--then Candidate Biden--
said, if he got elected, there would be no oil and gas exploration on 
public lands--no leasing, no use. That is why they have shut down all 
of these applications for the permits to drill. That is why the 
administration has said: You are not taking it out of the ground.
  This is a Presidential promise.
  As of today, we continue to produce a lot less oil in the United 
States than we did at the height of our economic boom prior to the 
pandemic. We have about 1,400,000 barrels a day less in U.S. production 
today than we had during the height of the economy before the pandemic. 
So we have a lot of catching up to do.
  When the administration says you can't bring it in from Canada 
because you are not going to have Keystone and then pounds its chest in 
pride, that is a political statement. When the nominee for the 
Secretary of the Interior says to leave it all in the ground--all of 
it--that is a political statement. When a local community says, ``No 
pipelines in here. We don't care if the people in our communities have 
to pay twice what they are paying in our neighboring State,'' that is a 
political statement. It is all based on climate because we have John 
Kerry and his words to prove it, as well as those of the President of 
the United States.

  So I continue to enjoy having discussions with my colleague from 
Maine, and we will continue that on the Energy Committee, where he is a 
very productive member. There are areas we work together on and areas 
in which we disagree. People are entitled to their opinions.
  These are the facts as to what is happening with American energy 
today and as of the needs of the Nation. As we have recovered and 
continue to recover from the pandemic, we are still very far behind in 
American energy needs, and it is the political activities of this 
administration that have limited our ability to return to our full, 
productive capacity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

[[Page S1100]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of my 
friend from Wyoming to a column today by Dana Milbank in The Washington 
Post. I think it is really worth reading in light of some of the things 
that have been said on the floor:

       Canceling the Keystone XL pipeline caused gas prices to 
     rise?

  That has been said. Well, it is wrong.

       It was only 10 percent [finished] when Biden canceled it, 
     and its owners didn't expect to open it until 2023 at the 
     earliest.

  It had no measurable impact--maybe no impact--on current oil prices.

       [The assertion that] Biden halted new drilling on Federal 
     lands? Wrong. After a temporary halt in new leases, Biden has 
     outpaced Trump in new drilling permits for public lands.

  The Post has reported that publicly.

       As for Biden's ``shutdown of American energy,'' U.S. 
     production has increased under Biden from 9.7 million barrels 
     a day to 11.6 million barrels. The number of oil rigs 
     operating was at 172 in July 2020, E&E News reports. Now, 519 
     are in operation. U.S. production is forecast to set a record 
     next year.
       What's holding back oil production--

  according to Mr. Milbank--

     isn't government policy. U.S. producers still have 4,400 
     wells already approved and drilled that are not yet 
     producing. They aren't drilling more because of a shortage of 
     workers and equipment and, particularly, investors' greed--

  which, I think, the Senator from Maine was alluding to.
  So some of the many things that have been said on the floor here as 
gospel have turned out to be somewhat short of factual.
  I would concede that I listened to the Senator's statement earlier 
that this is a supply and demand issue at its heart. I do think there 
is some gouging going on. Maybe I am wrong. The fact of the matter is 
we are coming out of a recession--or at least out of a downturn in the 
economy--from COVID-19, and there is an exceeding demand and not much 
supply. The net result is inflationary, and prices have gone up at the 
pump. In terms of this administration's being at war with the 
production of oil in America, I don't think that case can be made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the comments of the 
majority whip.
  My friend from Wyoming will be surprised that I think we have some 
agreement on the issue of infrastructure.
  When I was the Governor of Maine, we--we, the pipeline company but 
under the auspices of the environmental regulatory policies in Maine--
constructed a brand new pipeline for natural gas from Nova Scotia 
through New Brunswick and through Maine into Massachusetts. I believe 
one of the problems we have is a lack of gas pipeline infrastructure, 
and that causes higher prices than there should be in New England.
  I think the Senator and I agree on that. Where we disagree is on the 
extent to which any policies of this administration have affected the 
price.
  As the Senator just pointed out, the Keystone Pipeline wasn't 
expected to deliver for another year or 2, and the express purpose of 
the Keystone Pipeline was to take oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast for 
export. It wasn't designed to service production in the United States.
  As I say, the problem right now is that the high price of gasoline is 
the result of the rapidity of the economic recovery, which is a good 
thing. What is not a good thing is that the oil companies made a choice 
last year to invest in their shareholders and their stock prices rather 
than in producing oil.
  I understand that to some extent because they took such a beating 
during the pandemic. It dropped so fast that oil was actually trading 
in negative territory for a period of time. Yet, once it became clear 
that the economic recovery was on track and that demand was solid and 
likely to remain so, that is when, I believe, those decisions about 
buybacks and stock dividends should have been reexamined in light of 
the need--the obvious need--for additional resources in this country.
  So I appreciate this discussion. It is a rare day when actual debate 
breaks out on the Senate floor. I am delighted to have been able to 
have participated in it, but I think we ought to continue to remember 
that the issue here is supply and demand. Politics can affect these 
things on the margins, but the decisions of the producers are what 
really determine whether supply will match demand. If it doesn't, 
prices are going to go up, and the question then is, What do you do 
with the profits? That is the decision that was made last year.
  I deeply hope that the industry is reexamining that decision, 
particularly in light of current prices and the situation in Ukraine, 
and will ramp up production in a way that will bring prices down and 
allow us to enjoy the full fruits of the recovery that we have seen, 
not undermined by inflation, which has been led by the cost of fuel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know Senators are waiting on movements on 
both sides, but I just want to reiterate what I said earlier this 
afternoon. We have before us a message from the House--the omnibus. I 
would point out that both Republicans and Democrats have had an 
enormous amount of input into this for over the past several months. I 
know that because the Appropriations Committee staff has worked so hard 
on it--again, both sides of the aisle.
  Earlier today, I put into the Record the names of members of my staff 
who have worked on this. I would just mention to other Senators, there 
are many times I would be on phone calls with them and conference calls 
at 10 and 11 at night. I can then go to bed. They were still there at 2 
or 3 o'clock in the morning. I know that a number of them have given up 
time with their families over the weekend. I would be checking in with 
them or come down and meet with them, but I could go home. They kept on 
working. I think we have to understand, if it were not for such 
dedicated staff members, this Senate could not exist.
  We have a complex package before us, but in a way, what we have here 
is a simple matter. Everybody has had input into it. As chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, I tried to make it open to everybody. 
The vice chairman, Senator Shelby, a close friend of mine, has done the 
same on his side. People have been heard.
  Now comes the time when we have to vote. The government runs out of 
money at midnight tomorrow. Look what faces our country. We, as the 
leading democracy in the world, are trying to stand up for Ukraine.
  I applaud President Biden. He and I sometimes joke that when I came 
here, I was accused because I was 34 years old--the Presiding Officer 
can understand this feeling--I was accused by very senior Senators of 
being too young to be in the U.S. Senate. Fortunately, I was not the 
youngest. The youngest was Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. We formed 
a bond over that. We worked together on so many things. I watched him 
in the Foreign Relations Committee; I watched him in the Judiciary; and 
I watched him as Vice President and now as President.
  I have seen him tirelessly, quietly, a lot of it not in the full 
light of the press but just doing what he has to do, calling leaders 
who respect him around the world, forming a coalition in Ukraine, to 
say: Here is how we will stand up against Russia.
  I know so many of the Russian people are good people but being led by 
a person who has demonstrated activities which make him a war criminal. 
What has happened when mothers, fathers, and their children are 
machine-gunned to death on the streets of the city they grew up in by 
Russian invaders? This is a war crime when Vladimir Putin sends them 
there.
  In this omnibus, we have support for the Ukrainian people. Let's 
stand up. Let's deliver this support. Let's do what we should do. Let 
the Senate be the conscience of the Nation. Let's not have a dozen or 
more amendments that are designed more for ``Here is how I can get 30 
seconds on the news'' or in a Twitter account or somewhere. Let's do 
what is best for this country. Let's do what is best for the people in 
Ukraine.
  Look at the lies--look at the lies that have come out of Russia. I 
don't say it lightly after 48 years here to call the leader of a 
country a war criminal, but Vladimir Putin has been a war criminal. He 
has been a war criminal in having people go in and do the horrible 
crimes--blowing up maternity hospitals where women are giving birth,

[[Page S1101]]

killing children, bombing schools, destroying families, innocent 
civilians--for what? To return a dream of a Soviet Union that never 
existed; to return a dream of being a modern-day czar when that is not 
something you really want to be? No.
  Let us Senators--Republicans and Democrats--stand up and say: OK. We 
are going to do our job. We are going to vote for our legislation. We 
are going to vote for appropriations to help the President of the 
United States stand up and help the people of Ukraine. We all know what 
we are going to do. We all know what the stakes are. We all know what 
is here. Let's stop the press releases. Let's stop the grandstanding. 
Let's stand up and vote. Vote yes or vote no. Don't stand behind 
something where you say: Well, I might be judged this way or I might be 
judged that way on a vote.

  Just as the Presiding Officer has cast tough votes, we all do. I 
voted 17,000 times on this floor. I was proud to do it. Was I right on 
every single vote? I am sure I can go back over those and say: What was 
I thinking? But I tried to do what is best.
  We know what is best now: fund our government, pay for our young 
people, pay for our schools, pay for our nutrition, pay for feeding 
Americans but also pay for helping Ukrainians who are standing up 
against a war criminal.
  We all proudly say we stand for democracy and the ideals of 
democracy. Let's do it. The people of Ukraine are.
  When I think of the malignant lie--terrorist things that come from 
Russia against the proud people of Ukraine--I think of the Putin group 
calling President Zelenskyy a Nazi. He is Jewish and proud of it. He 
couldn't be further away from being a Nazi. He is a man who could have 
fled his country as so many others have. He stayed there to protect his 
country, to stand with his country. Shouldn't we stand with him too? I 
think we should.
  I urge my Senate colleagues, come in here. You go home and talk about 
how I voted for this; I voted for that. Well, come and vote. Come and 
vote. Let's get this bill passed.
  I will probably say more as we go forward in this. I know there are 
other Senators--like the distinguished senior Senator of Michigan who 
is about to speak.
  I will yield the floor on this. I have been here and had to vote over 
and over. As I said, I voted 17,000 times. I think there is only one 
person in history who has voted more than that. These haven't all been 
easy votes. I have had to wrestle with my conscience.
  I go back to one of the first critical votes I cast as the newest, 
most junior Member of the Senate--a 34-year-old Member of the Senate--
the junior-most member of the Armed Services Committee. We were asked 
to vote to continue the war in Vietnam. I campaigned against the war in 
Vietnam, and, ironically enough, at that time, the majority in Vermont 
supported the war. I did not. In my own conscience, I did not. So we 
had five votes in committee to continue. Each time, the vote to 
continue failed by one vote. I was the newest and youngest member of 
that committee, and I voted no. I became the only Vermonter ever to 
vote to end the war in Vietnam, and I was told that would end my Senate 
career; I was done. I think back 48 years to that time, and I know at 
the end of this term, I will leave, but I will leave on my own accord, 
not because of a vote I cast.
  Every one of us should know, cast what is right in your conscience. 
Cast what is right in your conscience. That is worth more than an 
election.
  Vote for this. Get it done. Show Ukraine that the greatest democracy 
and the longest lasting democracy currently in the world--the United 
States--stands with you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up 
the following amendments to the motion to concur with an amendment: Lee 
No. 4989, Braun No. 4990, Kennedy No. 4983; that they be the only 
remaining amendments in order to the House message on H.R. 2471; that 
at 8:30 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in 
the order listed; that upon disposition of the amendments, the motion 
to refer and the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn and 
the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 2471, and with 60 affirmative votes required 
for adoption of Kennedy No. 4983 and the motion to concur, with 2 
minutes for debate equally divided between each vote, and all votes 
after the first vote be 10 minutes; finally, that if the motion to 
concur is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, across America, our schools are open and 
our children are back in the classroom, and that is great news for 
everyone.
  Unfortunately, providing our children healthy food has been a real 
challenge for schools thanks to supply chain challenges that are 
happening in many places and almost in every State.
  This chart shows the supply chain disruptions across the country, 
with the red being almost 100 percent of the schools having supply 
chain challenges and disruptions.
  Over 90 percent of the schools in the majority of the country are 
having challenges just buying the food they need for the children. That 
is why, during the pandemic, Congress made sure schools and meal 
providers had flexibility to continue to feed hungry children.
  Ninety percent of our schools, from rural Alaska to downtown 
Louisville, are still relying on these flexibilities to keep their 
children fed. Extending these bipartisan tools in the omnibus package 
is essential to helping schools ease back into regular operations for 
our children.
  Nutrition operations at schools are working hard. They are working as 
hard as they can to get back to normal, but it takes time, and the 
waivers help. When basic staples like chicken and whole grains cost 
double, waivers help schools in Caribou, MN, for instance, keep feeding 
kids. When supply chain limits available food options like ground beef 
or fruit, schools in Bismarck, ND, for instance, can use substitutions 
to put together healthy lunches.
  Hunger doesn't go away just because school is out. Thanks to these 
waivers, communities from Michigan, to Kentucky, to Utah were able to 
feed more children over the summer, particularly in rural communities.
  If schools or meal providers are unable to serve meals because of 
ongoing challenges, that hurts all of our children. Over 2,000 groups, 
from the School Nutrition Association, to Feeding America, to local 
school boards and superintendents and administrators, have all called 
on Congress to do what is right and extend these waivers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 10, 2021.
       Dear Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, Chairman 
     Leahy, Vice Chairman Shelby, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 
     Harris, Chairwoman Baldwin, Ranking Member Hoeven: At the 
     start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress gave the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to issue 
     nationwide child nutrition waivers to address access and 
     operational challenges created by the pandemic, allowing 
     school nutrition programs, local government agencies, and 
     nonprofit organizations to adapt as necessary to changes such 
     as school closures and virtual learning. This authority was 
     established through the Families First Coronavirus Response 
     Act (Public Law 116-127), extended for Fiscal Year 2021 
     through the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other 
     Extensions Act (Public Law 116-159) and again extended to 
     June 30, 2022 through the Extending Government Funding and 
     Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 117-43). 
     Without these waivers, the child nutrition programs would not 
     have been able to adequately respond to the fallout from 
     COVID-19. The meals provided through the child nutrition 
     programs have been critical to our nation's pandemic response 
     to childhood hunger.
       Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. 
     Families continue to need support, and school nutrition 
     departments and community sponsors still struggle to operate 
     under the unique circumstances created by

[[Page S1102]]

     the pandemic. Contrary to where many people thought and hoped 
     we would be at this point in the pandemic, COVID-19 continues 
     to be a threat causing school closures and requiring students 
     to stay home in quarantine. It is unclear when schools and 
     community organizations will be able to fully return to 
     normal operations, particularly in light of future variants 
     of COVID-19 that may develop.
       When the Public Health Emergency does finally end, it will 
     take time for nutrition operations to recover from the 
     challenges created during the pandemic: to rebuild their 
     programs and overcome the significant financial impact. USDA 
     will need waiver authority to support schools and program 
     operators through the summer and as the school year begins.
       The authority to provide a nationwide waiver in response to 
     the pandemic, even if it increases program costs, has only 
     been extended to June 30, 2022 and waivers cannot be provided 
     beyond the 2021-2022 school year (which the statute defines 
     as ending each year on June 30). This arbitrary deadline 
     means that summer meal programs will not be able to operate 
     under the same program rules through the entire summer. It 
     also takes away USDA's ability to respond to the operational 
     and access challenges that are likely at the start of the new 
     school year in what will hopefully be the first year back to 
     normal school nutrition operations.
       We, the undersigned organizations, ask Congress to further 
     extend USDA's nationwide waiver authority to September 30, 
     2022 to give USDA the flexibility needed to respond to the 
     pandemic as well as its aftermath, and to ensure that the 
     federal child nutrition programs continue to operate and 
     provide healthy snacks and meals to students.
           Sincerely,
       AASA, The School Superintendents Association; Academy of 
     Nutrition and Dietetics; Afterschool Alliance; American 
     Commodity Distribution Association; American Heart 
     Association; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Bread for the 
     World; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Science in 
     the Public Interest (CSPI); Children's Defense Fund; Feeding 
     America; First Focus Campaign for Children.
       FoodCorps; Food Research & Action Center; MomsRising; 
     National Education Association; National Farm to School 
     Network; National PTA; National Recreation and Park 
     Association; School Nutrition Association; Share Our 
     Strength; Urban School Food Alliance; YMCA of the USA.
                                  ____

                                                 February 4, 2022.
       Dear Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, Chairman 
     Leahy, Vice Chairman Shelby: We are members of the Mayors 
     Alliance to End Childhood Hunger, a nonpartisan coalition 
     representing more than 65 mayors across the nation working in 
     partnership with Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry Campaign 
     to ensure that every child has the healthy food they need to 
     thrive. We appreciate Congress' ongoing efforts to help the 
     millions of children who rely on federal child nutrition 
     programs as a daily source of nutrition. At the start of the 
     pandemic, Congress provided the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) with the authority to issue nationwide 
     child nutrition waivers to ensure that children would 
     continue to have access to healthy meals despite COVID-l9 
     related disruptions and safety precautions.
       With the pandemic continuing, we urge Congress to extend 
     USDA's waiver authority through the 2022-2023 school year, 
     giving USDA the authority to provide community organizations 
     and school nutrition providers with the critical 
     flexibilities needed to respond to public health requirements 
     and supply chain disruptions. This is necessary to ensure 
     that the federal child nutrition programs continue to operate 
     and provide healthy meals and snacks for vulnerable children.
       Our cities are on the frontline of responding to challenges 
     in our communities, and as mayors, we need every option 
     available to fight childhood hunger. Waivers for child 
     nutrition program requirements have allowed schools, 
     community partners, and other organizations in our cities to 
     operate with the flexibility to meet the growing need while 
     protecting the health and safety of kids during the pandemic. 
     However, these critical waivers are currently set to expire 
     at the end of the 2021-2022 school year, and the USDA does 
     not have the authority to issue or extend waivers beyond that 
     point unless Congress acts. The uncertainty about the 
     extension of USDA's waiver authority is a significant barrier 
     to schools and community organizations trying to make plans 
     to feed children this summer and next school year since the 
     requirements affect budgets, staffing, and vendors. 
     Furthermore, the expiration of USDA's waiver authority at the 
     end of the 2021-2022 school year further limits summer meal 
     programs by not operating under the same programs by not 
     operating under the same program rules across the entire 
     summer. With deadlines looming, especially for summer 
     operations, organizations must have the reassurance they need 
     that they will be able to safely run programs despite ongoing 
     challenges. This hits our communities particularly hard 
     because summer is the hungriest time for children. Summer 
     hunger should not be intensified because meal programs lack 
     the flexibility they need to reach kids.
       The suite of child nutrition waivers has given community 
     organizations and school nutrition providers critical 
     flexibilities that have:
       Supported families who needed to pick up multiple meals at 
     a time in one location as they returned to work or faced 
     transportation challenges.
       Allowed for social distancing protocols through grab-and-go 
     meal distribution or delivery.
       Ensured that children who need meals are getting nutritious 
     food as families continue to struggle economically through 
     the pandemic.
       Helped school nutrition providers support a return to 
     ``normal'' in-person learning with the flexibility to 
     implement safety precautions and overcome supply chain and 
     labor disruptions.
       Child nutrition programs play a critical role in helping 
     kids learn, stay healthy, and thrive.
       Again, we urge Congress to act now by extending USDA's 
     waiver authority so that schools and community organizations 
     have ample time to ensure that no child struggles to find 
     their next meal.
           Sincerely,
       Levar Stoney, Chair, Mayors Alliance, Mayor of Richmond, 
     VA; John Giles, Vice Chair, Mayors Alliance, Mayor of Mesa, 
     AZ; Timothy L. Ragland, Mayor of Talladega, AL; Randall 
     Woodfin, Mayor of Birmingham, AL; Hillrey Adams, Mayor of 
     Mountain Home, AR; Lioneld Jordan, Mayor of Fayetteville, AR; 
     Regina Romero, Mayor of Tucson, AZ.
       London Breed, Mayor of San Francisco, CA; Martha Guerrero, 
     Mayor of West Sacramento, CA; Darrell Steinberg, Mayor of 
     Sacramento, CA; Michael B. Hancock, Mayor of Denver, CO; Luke 
     Bronin, Mayor of Hartford, CT; Muriel Bowser, Mayor of 
     Washington, DC; John E. Dailey, Mayor of Tallahassee, FL; 
     Lori Lightfoot, Mayor of Chicago, IL.
       Sharon Weston Broome, Mayor of Baton Rouge, LA; Kim 
     Driscoll, Mayor of Salem, MA; Jake Day, Mayor of Salisbury, 
     MD; Michael Foley, Mayor of Westbrook, ME: Andy Schor, Mayor 
     of Lansing, MI; Chokwe A. Lumumba, Mayor of Jackson, MS; Pam 
     Hemminger, Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC; Elaine O'Neal, Mayor of 
     Durham, NC.
       Sandy Roberson, Mayor of Rocky Mount, NC; Leirion Gaylor 
     Baird, Mayor of Lincoln, NE; Dave Fried, Mayor of 
     Robbinsville, NJ; Jeff Martin, Mayor of Hamilton, NJ; Kenneth 
     Miyagishima, Mayor of Las Cruces, NM; Alan Webber, Mayor of 
     Santa Fe, NM; Hillary Schieve, Mayor of Reno, NV; Malik 
     Evans, Mayor of Rochester NY.
       Kathy Sheehan, Mayor of Albany, NY; Justin M. Bibb, Mayor 
     of Cleveland, OH; Tito Brown, Mayor of Youngstown, OH; Andrew 
     J. Ginther, Mayor of Columbus, OH; Ted Wheeler, Mayor of 
     Portland, OR; James Kenney, Mayor of Philadelphia, PA; Jorge 
     O. Elorza, Mayor of Providence, RI; Brandon L. Weatherford, 
     Mayor of Eutawville, SC.
       Eric Johnson, Mayor of Dallas, TX; Trey Mendez, Mayor of 
     Brownsville, TX; Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, TX; 
     Mattie Parker, Mayor of Fort Worth, TX; Sylvester Turner, 
     Mayor of Houston, TX; Barbara Tolbert, Mayor of Arlington, 
     WA; Satya Rhodes-Conway, Mayor of Madison, WI; Steve 
     Williams, Mayor of Huntington, WV.
                                  ____

                                                 February 4, 2022.
       Dear Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, Chairman 
     Leahy, Vice Chairman Shelby, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 
     Harris, Chairwoman Baldwin, Ranking Member Hoeven: We, the 
     undersigned national, state, and local organizations, ask you 
     to further extend USDA's nationwide waiver authority through 
     School Year 2022-2023 in recognition of the ongoing pandemic, 
     the continuing school closures, and the need for flexibility 
     to meet the needs of students.
       At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress gave the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to issue 
     nationwide child nutrition waivers to address access and 
     operational challenges created by the pandemic, allowing 
     school nutrition programs, local government agencies, and 
     nonprofit organizations to adapt as necessary to changes such 
     as school closures and virtual learning. This authority was 
     established through the Families First Coronavirus Response 
     Act (Public Law 116-127), extended for Fiscal Year 2021 
     through the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other 
     Extensions Act (Public Law 116-159) and again extended to 
     June 30, 2022 through the Extending Government Funding and 
     Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 117-43). 
     Without these waivers, the child nutrition programs would not 
     have been able to adequately respond to the fallout from 
     COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic schools and community meal 
     sponsors have relied on these waivers to keep children fed 
     during short- and long-term closures, alleviate child hunger, 
     and advance racial equity and child well-being.
       Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. 
     Families continue to need support, particularly Black, 
     Hispanic, and Indigenous families who disproportionately lack 
     reliable access to healthy meals, and school nutrition 
     departments and community sponsors still struggle to operate 
     under the unique circumstances created by the pandemic. 
     Contrary to where many people thought and hoped we would be 
     at this point in the pandemic, COVID-19 continues to be a 
     threat causing frequent school closures and

[[Page S1103]]

     requiring students to stay home in quarantine and miss meals. 
     Currently short and long-term school closures are occurring 
     constantly across the country. They are due not only to COVID 
     exposures and the need to quarantine but to staffing 
     shortages and teacher burnout. It is unclear when schools and 
     community organizations will be able to fully return to 
     normal operations, particularly in light of omicron and 
     future variants of COVID-19 that may develop.
       The authority to provide a nationwide waiver in response to 
     the pandemic, even if it increases program costs, has only 
     been extended to June 30, 2022 and waivers cannot be provided 
     beyond the 2021-2022 school year (which the statute defines 
     as ending each year on June 30). This arbitrary deadline 
     means that summer meal programs will not be able to operate 
     Under the same program rules through the entire summer, 
     forcing many providers to stop serving 'meals or shut down 
     altogether and leaving millions of children without access to 
     healthy meals. The June 30th expiration also takes away 
     USDA's ability to respond to the supply chain, operational, 
     and access challenges that are likely despite what will 
     hopefully be the first year back to normal school operations. 
     Moreover, it denies schools and other sponsors the tools and 
     flexibilities they need to recover from the impacts of the 
     pandemic and resume normal operations.
       We, the undersigned national, state and local 
     organizations, ask Congress to further extend USDA's 
     nationwide waiver authority through School Year 2022-2023 to 
     ensure USDA has continued flexibility to respond to the 
     ongoing and evolving impacts of the pandemic as well as its 
     aftermath, and to ensure that the federal child nutrition 
     programs continue to operate and provide healthy snacks and 
     meals to students.
           Sincerely,


                         NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

       AASA, The School Superintendents Association; Academy of 
     Nutrition and Dietetics; Advocates for Better Children's 
     Diets; Affinity Group; Afterschool Alliance; Agudath Israel 
     of America; All Our Kin; Alliance for a Healthier Generation; 
     Alliance to End Hunger; American Academy of Pediatrics; 
     American Commodity Distribution Association; American 
     Diabetes Association; American Federation of State, County 
     and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Heart Association.
       American Public Health Association; American Society for 
     Nutrition; AMIkids, Inc; Aramak; Association of School 
     Business Officials International (ASBO); Association of SNAP 
     Nutrition; Education Administrators (ASNNA); Association of 
     State Public Health Nutritionists; Autistic People of Color 
     Fund; Azimuth Trust; Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and 
     Poverty; Better Tomorrows; Black Men's Health Initiative; 
     Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Bread for the World; Buena 
     Vista Foods; BUILD Initiative; CACFP Roundtable.
       Center for American Progress; Center for Biological 
     Diversity; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center 
     for Science in the Public Interest; Chef Ann Foundation; 
     Child Care Aware of America; Child Care Resources, Inc. of 
     VA, DC, MD, OH, PA, TX; Children's Defense Fund; Children's 
     HealthWatch; Chilis on Wheels; Church World Service; 
     Coalition for Healthy School Food; Coalition on Human Needs; 
     Common Threads; Commonwealth Care Alliance; Compass Group 
     USA; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good 
     Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Congressional Hunger Center; 
     Council of Chief State School Officers; DataHash LLC.
       Disciples Center for Public Witness; Deliverance Children's 
     Ministry; Don Lee Farms; E S Foods; Eat REAL; Empowering 
     Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC); Equal Heart; Evangelical 
     Lutheran Church in America; F.I.S.H.; Fair Food Network; 
     Feeding America; First Children's Finance; First Focus 
     Campaign for Children; Food for Good; Food insight Group; 
     Food Research & Action Center.
       FoodCorps; Fork Farms Foundation; Friends of the Earth; 
     GIVN; Gold Kist Farms; Healthy Food America; HEAR US Inc.; 
     Hip Hop is Green; Hispanic Federation; Hunger Free America; 
     Institute For Child Success; International Dairy Foods 
     Association; International Fresh Produce Association; Islamic 
     Relief USA; Jack Link's Protein Snacks; John F. Kennedy 
     Family Service Center; Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable 
     Future; KidKare by Minute Menu; Kitchen Sync Strategies.
       Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy; 
     Leonetti's Frozen Foods Inc; Love Little Children, Inc.; 
     LunchAssist; M.C.I. Foods, Inc.; MAZON: A Jewish Response to 
     Hunger; Migrant Legal Action Program; MomsRising; National 
     Association of Elementary School Principals; National 
     Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National 
     Association for Family Child Care; National Association for 
     the Education of Young Children; National Association of 
     Councils on Developmental Disabilities; National Association 
     of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners.
       National Association of Social Workers; National 
     Association of State Directors of Migrant Education; National 
     CACFP Sponsors Association; National Community Action 
     Partnership; National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Education Association; National Farm to School Network; 
     National Food Group; National Immigration Law Center; 
     National Indian child Care Association; National Life Group 
     Foundation; National Milk Producers Federation; National PTA; 
     National Recreation and Park Association; National School 
     Boards Association; National WIC Association; Nationa1 
     Women's Law Center.
       Native Farm Bill Coalition; Norris Products Corporation; 
     Northwest Nutrition Service; Olsson Frank Weeda Partnership 
     for America's Children; Poetry X Hunger; Porter-Leath; Public 
     Advocacy for Kids (PAK); Public Health Institute; RESULTS; 
     Revolution English/Noticias para Inmigrantes; Revolution 
     Foods; Save the Children; Save the Children Action Network 
     (SCAN); School Nutrition Association; SchoolHouse Connection; 
     Share Our Strength; Shriver Center on Poverty Law; Slow Food 
     USA.
                                  ____


                                                February 28, 2022.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: On behalf of the Michigan 
     Association of Superintendents and Administrators, I am 
     writing to urge you to extend the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture's nationwide waiver authority to September 30, 
     2022 to give USDA the flexibility needed to respond to the 
     pandemic and to ensure that the districts operating federal 
     child nutrition programs continue to operate and provide 
     healthy snacks and meals to the students.
       At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress gave the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to issue 
     nationwide child nutrition waivers to address access and 
     operational challenges created by the pandemic, allowing 
     school nutrition programs and local government agencies to 
     adapt as necessary to changes such as school closures and 
     virtual learning. These waivers have been critical in 
     ensuring that child nutrition programs can adequately respond 
     to the fallout from COVID-19 and continue to provide meals to 
     children.
       Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. 
     Families continue to need support, and school nutrition 
     departments and community sponsors still struggle to operate 
     under the unique circumstances created by the pandemic. When 
     the Public Health Emergency does finally end, it will take 
     time for nutrition operations to recover from the challenges 
     created during the pandemic: to rebuild their programs and 
     overcome the significant financial impact. USDA will need 
     waiver authority to support schools and program operators 
     through the summer and as the school year begins.
       The authority to provide a nationwide waiver in response to 
     the pandemic, even if it increases program costs, has only 
     been extended to June 30, 2022 and waivers cannot be provided 
     beyond the 2021-2022 school year (which the statute defines 
     as ending each year on June 30). This arbitrary deadline 
     means that summer meal programs will not be able to operate 
     under the same program rules through the entire summer. It 
     also takes away USDA's ability to respond to the operational 
     and access challenges that are likely at the start of the new 
     school year in what will hopefully be the first year back to 
     normal school nutrition operations.
       Additionally, districts need stability and clarity as they 
     prepare for the 2022-2023 school year and should know whether 
     the waivers will be available.
       Thank you very much for your attention to this matter,
     Matt Schueller,
       Director of Government Relations, Michigan Association of 
     Superintendents and Administrators.

  Ms. STABENOW. We all want life to get back to normal. Right now, we 
need our Republican colleagues to support the bipartisan tools that 
will help get us there.
  This amendment is a short extension. There is a clear end date when 
schools will be back to normal operations, but in the meantime, these 
waivers are key to helping schools stay open and operate in person for 
our children.
  Taking these waivers away would leave schools and summer meal 
programs scrambling, and that hurts up to 30 million kids who eat 
school meals--30 million kids. Smaller rural schools and their students 
would undoubtedly be hurt the worst.
  It is time for Congress to stand with our schools and with our 
children. So would the Senator agree to modify his request to include a 
vote in relation to Stabenow amendment No. 2994?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, speaking on behalf of Leader McConnell and 
with all due respect to my friend from Michigan, this is a COVID-
related provision which the Biden administration never requested. It is 
not in the President's budget. It is not even in the supplemental 
budget. The administration asked for everything under the Sun, but they 
never asked for this.
  This is another example of my colleagues trying to take an emergency 
pandemic, the exemptions, and turn

[[Page S1104]]

them into permanent changes that last forever. Families don't want 
schools to be permanently stuck in a pandemic posture. Families want 
schools to move past COVID and get back to normal. Yet this amendment 
would continue policies that were explicitly designed to help schools 
close and go virtual. That is exactly what families don't want. Parents 
and kids want schools open.
  Finally, this amendment costs $11 billion, and it is not offset. For 
the people watching this tonight, that means it is not paid for. It is 
$11 billion more that we can't afford.
  We had a fully-paid-for COVID package ready to go until the House 
Democrats blew it up. We will not be going around the backs of our own 
Senate committees of jurisdiction because House Democrats killed a 
bipartisan COVID package.
  So I respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, in the last 4 days alone, the U.S. 
Senate has passed a sweeping postal reform bill, unanimously approved 
anti-lynching legislation, approved emergency aid to Ukraine, and now 
we are about to fully fund the government. From start to finish, it has 
been a very productive and very bipartisan week in the Senate. If we 
cold boil down this week to three words in the Senate, they would be 
``productive,'' ``bipartisan,'' and ``successful.''
  In a few moments, the Senate will pass the strongest, boldest, and 
most significant government funding package we have seen in a long 
time. This bipartisan funding package is a significant and far-reaching 
win for the American people, and I am glad the Senate moved as quickly 
today as I hoped we would.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I say: Bravo. A job well 
done.
  We are keeping our promise to support Ukraine as they fight for their 
lives against the evil Vladimir Putin. With nearly $14 billion in 
emergency aid, Congress will approve more than double what the 
administration originally requested. We took the President's original 
request for Ukraine aid, examined it, and added to it, and every last 
penny of the money will be well spent. We are giving the Ukrainians 
billions for food, medicine, shelter, and support for the over 2 
million refugees who have had to leave Ukraine, as well as funding for 
weapons transfers like Javelins and Stingers.
  We are going to reassure and strengthen NATO and add teeth to our 
defenses against Russia's malicious cyber warfare.
  We promised the Ukrainian people they would not go at it alone in 
their fight against Putin, and once we pass this funding in a short 
while, we will keep that promise.
  On the domestic front, this funding bill is awash with good news for 
our country. We are about to give our troops a pay raise. We are 
increasing funding for our schools and Head Start Programs and Pell 
grants. We are reviving at last the Violence Against Women Act. We are 
kick-starting the President's Cancer Moonshot. And with this package, 
we will unlock billions upon billions to fully fund the bipartisan 
infrastructure law.
  Of course, we didn't get everything we hoped for. In the weeks ahead, 
we must--we absolutely must--work to secure more COVID money. COVID 
funding is about being prepared. By funding vaccines and therapeutics 
and testing, we will be ready for the next variant and stand a better 
chance of keeping schools open and preserving normality in our daily 
lives. We are going to keep working on this. It is too important to 
ignore.
  Now, as we reach the finish line, I want to sincerely thank Chairman 
Leahy and Ranking Member Shelby. What a fitting and worthy 
accomplishment as they near the end of their tenures in office.
  I have always said from my first day as majority leader that 
Democrats would be willing to work in a bipartisan way to get things 
done whenever we could. Once the omnibus passes, the Senate will have 
sealed the deal on three major, bipartisan accomplishments this week 
alone.
  Of course, when we are unable to find common ground, Democrats will 
hold firm in defense of our values and be willing to work alone if 
needed, but this week, bipartisanship has propelled us over the finish 
line. It has not been easy to put this package together, but we are 
moments away from getting it done, and I thank my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, the majority leader referred to what we are 
doing this evening as ``awash with good news.'' Well, it is also awash 
with earmarks. They have not been around for over 10 years, and we are 
bringing them back.
  I am going to call up an amendment here in a bit that is going to 
talk about what to do about them, but I think you need to have a 
backdrop of what we are doing here this evening.
  I am on the Budget Committee, and we didn't report out a budget 
resolution, and I don't think we have done a budget consistently for 
over 10 years.
  This is the biggest business in the world that now is spending close 
to $5 trillion--only $1.5 trillion of it that is even subject to review 
because the one ingenious thing that we have done here is put most of 
our spending on autopilot. That is what drives the government 
currently, and that means that the Budget Committee is a useless 
appendage because we don't use it anymore.
  I got here a little over 3 years ago. We were $18 trillion in debt. 
Now we are over $30 trillion in debt, and everyone seems to shrug their 
shoulders. That is not a good business plan, for Americans to be 
borrowing money, even if it has good stuff in it, when it is for 
consumption. It will only end up in a hard reconciliation down the 
road.
  Now, let's talk about earmarks. It is kind of a gateway drug to more 
spending. There are 367 pages of earmarks. I just took a quick poll how 
much it weighs in paper--4 to 5 pounds. We haven't had them for over 10 
years, and now they are back.
  In the House, they said they are OK with it. In the Senate, the other 
side of the aisle said they are OK with it. We said we are not OK with 
it in our Republican conference, but any Senator can do it anyway.
  Those are called gimmicks and loopholes, and that is the way the 
place works. None of us here are sure how much money is actually being 
devoted to these. It is a wasteful tool that was away for a long time, 
and it is on top of a budget that was never done, and what we are doing 
this evening was supposed to have been done by September 30 of last 
year. Too many people depend on this place to have a system that is run 
by the seat of its pants.
  You bring the earmarks back--well, there are supposed to be a few 
rules that go with them.
  You are supposed to make them public 2 days before you actually have 
to vote on them. Well, that didn't happen. The text was released at 
1:30 a.m. yesterday--2,700 pages. The House passed it only after 20 
hours of review. That is at the rate of about having to come up with 
finding out a billion dollars a minute of what is in it.
  Members are supposed to have a financial disclosure attached to any 
earmark. That hasn't happened either. It is just one of those simple 
details that seem to never get attended to in this place.
  Let's look at a few of the doozies.
  One earmark spends half a million dollars to promote health equity in 
Yonkers in New York.
  One spends $1.6 million for university research into equitable 
shellfish aquaculture. I don't know what that is, but it is in Rhode 
Island.
  One earmark spends $300,000 on the Alliance for Gun Responsibility 
Foundation, a leftwing lobbying group that claims that the Second 
Amendment has a history of being used as a tool of White supremacy.
  These are three samples of hundreds and hundreds of earmarks. It is 
not what the American public deserves. They expect more out of us. It 
should be a merit-based system on what we spend here. It should be 
going through regular order on the Budget Committee I am on, where you 
bring people in to testify. Do you actually need more money? What you 
did spend the year before, was it spent well? That is the way all other 
places in this country do

[[Page S1105]]

it because it is the only thing that works. Here, the system has been 
so degraded, this is what we end up with.
  I will end with this: Most of my colleagues here, I think, view this 
place as a growth business, but a growth business is based on a few 
things. You generally make a profit. That is not what this is about. 
But you balance your budget, you do things that make sense year after 
year. And when you are spending money that constitutes almost 20 
percent of our GDP, you would think you would put more into it than 
dropping 2,700 pages in our lap and thinking that you can get through 
it.
  For those who want more of this, for the sake of the institution, you 
ought to be concerned about what it is going to look like down the road 
when we add another $1.5 trillion in debt to our current $30 trillion, 
and there is no end in sight. A lot of stories have been written 
throughout history on where that ends up, and it is in the ditch.
  The Medicare trust fund will be completely exhausted in about 4\1/2\ 
years; 18 percent benefit cuts when that happens.
  Actuarially, we have known the Social Security fund is going to go 
broke in about 10 or 11 years. What will we do? We will probably wait 
until the year before it happens, not make any other reforms, and then 
borrow the money to backfill it and put more and more obligation on our 
kids and our grandkids.
  I am going to call up my amendment in a bit.
  I will yield the floor at this time.

                          ____________________