Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Dustin Mondloch, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Mr. KING. I also ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges for today's session: Mateus Voltolini, Timothy Ryan, Hayley Smith, and Colter Adams.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the career one of Maine's most dedicated, respected leaders: Dana Connors. Dana is part of the fabric of Maine, and it is almost impossible to concisely recognize the impact he has had on our State. Dana, a proud native of Aroostook County, started his career as a municipal manager in Presque Isle after graduating from the University of Maine. Here, he served as city manager for 16 years, where he built a reputation as an advocate for common sense, a consensus builder, and a good listener. His exceptional ability to put a fine point on issues and present a case for the greater good brought him to State government, where he served as Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Transportation under both a Democratic and Republican Governor--a true testament to his bipartisan values. In the time I have known him, it has always been clear that Dana served the people, not any party. It is due to this unimpeachable dedication, that people have always trusted him implicitly. I am one of those people, and when I was lucky enough to serve as Governor of the great State of Maine, Dana was my first and only choice to be my transition director. Shortly after in 1994, he became president of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, where he has served our business community admirably for nearly 30 years. It is here at the chamber where perhaps he has left his largest legacy. There has never been a greater advocate for Maine's businesses, and his legacy will continue to echo throughout our State for generations. Because of Dana, thousands of Maine businesses have been able to thrive, employ hard- working Maine people, and make our State the greatest in the Nation. While his retirement will undoubtably leave a large void in the business community, Dana has instilled the same work ethic and understanding of the needs of Maine businesses in his team. They will continue Dana's legacy and ensure the growing success of the State that Dana devoted his career to. Dana has made the Maine State chamber a shining example of professionalism. His instincts--and his fashion sense--may be a hard act to follow, but his ability to lead always includes a path for others to succeed. Thank you, Dana, for your friendship, your leadership, and your dedication to public service. Maine is better for it.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, Friday, September 16, 2022, marks the National Prisoners of War and Missing in Action Recognition Day. On this day, we join together to honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have been prisoners of war and for those who remain missing in action, including the 477 Mainers still unaccounted for. This solemn day is a painful, important reminder of the sacrifices endured by servicemembers and the immense, incalculable loss and uncertainty borne by their families and communities. Let us renew our commitment to bring answers and closure to the loved ones of those missing in action and to care for all those who have endured the painful silence of these losses. Today, I join people across Maine and our Nation in saying, ``You Are Not Forgotten.'' The phrase is reminder of our duty to leave no American servicemember or veteran behind, no matter where they may be. I stand humbled and grateful to those who answered the call of their Nation to protect our way of life. We also pay tribute to those who have been POW/MIA and have returned to their loved ones. We have a solemn obligation to take care of them and their families so that they can enjoy the freedoms they sacrificed for. To the families who have lost their sons and daughters and to the comrades who have lost their friends and companions, know that today and every day we stand with you through your hardships and in honoring the selfless service of America's POW and MIA.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this is going to be an unusual set of comments for me because I am going to start out with some personal history, which I hope will make sense in terms of what I want to address. I started working in the alternative energy industry in 1983. When I say industry, it was, actually, a very small company developing small hydro projects in Maine and New England. We then worked on the development of biomass projects. We, later on, worked on wind power and then also on the development of large-scale conservation. So my professional life has largely been occupied with energy and particularly with renewable energy. At the same time, I had a deep history in Maine in environmental matters. I represented the environmental community in Maine before the Maine Legislature, in the seventies, if you can believe that anybody around here was still doing things in the seventies. I also, as Governor, was very active in conservation matters and am proud to say that, during my 8 years as the Governor of Maine, we put aside and set into conservation and protection status more land than in the prior 175-year history of Maine combined. This has been a passion of mine, the protection of the environment, for my entire life--so the history of renewable energy development and also environmental advocacy. I learned some lessons when I was working in the field of developing alternative or renewable energy. The most important lesson is that there is no free lunch when it comes to energy. There are always costs and benefits. There are always impacts that some people think are terrific and that other people think are not so good. There are always trade-offs. In fact, I will never forget my going to hearings on hydro projects and having people come and object and saying: We like hydro but not on our river, not on this site, and, by the way, we don't really think you should be ruining the rivers. Why don't you go and do wind power? Lo and behold, 20 years later, I worked in the area of wind development, of wind power, and people came to our hearings and said: We don't really need to spoil the view in our mountains. Do more hydro. I am not making that up. I actually lived that sort of conflict. The second lesson I learned is that you may have global goals with renewable energy but have local impacts, and you often have a controversy about a particular project. The third thing I learned is that change is hard. Everybody is for progress. Nobody is for change. Change is difficult, whether it is for a local community, a State, or a nation. The fourth thing: Permitting is hard. Getting permits for renewable energy projects was lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive. This was serious learning that I had during this period in that, if you want to develop even the most beneficial project, you are going to have to go through an often arduous permitting process, and somebody isn't going to like it. There always will be trade-offs. These were sporadic, small projects. Indeed, in New England today-- and I just checked this morning--about 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewables. This is after almost 40 years of the development of these projects--about 10 percent. We are now talking about a transition in energy to a fully renewable future. Well, if you do the math, that means 10 times the amount of renewable energy development which we have done in the last 40 years, in the next 10 to 15 years. People have to understand that this is a major, major change that is going to require trade-offs. It is going to require us to make decisions and to understand--again, to go back to my basic premise-- that there is no free lunch. We are now undertaking the largest and most far-reaching energy transition in human history. The transition to fossil fuels took about 150 years. Going back to around 1800, you can see the graphic goes up, but we really got into the real heart of the fossil fuel economy in the mid-20th century--150 years. We are talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables over 15 years--not 150 but 15. We have to grasp that this is an enormous undertaking and that it is going to involve change. We are literally in a race with climate change. That is why it is going to have to happen in the next 10, 15, 20 years, because the consequences of not doing it are catastrophic, and we are already seeing that. I think that we have reached a point at which most Americans realize that climate change is real. The fishermen in Maine know it. The loggers know it. The farmers know it. The people who work with the land and the sea and the atmosphere understand what is happening. They see it. The animals know it. They know what is happening, and that is why we have to make this transition. That is why it is so important that we make this transition, and it has got to be fast. We don't have time to do it over 150 years or even over 50 years. It is a huge change. It is going to involve dislocation, and it is going to involve trade-offs. That is really the question that I want to address today. There is broad agreement, I believe, that we need change, that we need to develop responses to the global climate change crisis. There is certainly agreement in the environmental community as far as that question is concerned. There is nobody in the environmental community whom I know who doubts climate change or doubts the necessity of taking dramatic action to meet it. Climate change is as real as it gets, and we have to address it. How do we address it? With nonfossil fuel electrification--fast. If we can do that, we can address the CO2. Really, what we are talking about is the emission of CO2. Is it a problem? Well, the average over the past million years of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 280 parts per million. It varies up and down. People say: Oh, this is a natural cycle. Yes, it varies up and down between 150 and 300 parts per million. It is now at about 420 parts per million. It has gone up 20 in the last 2 or 3 years. The last time we were over 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere the oceans were 60 feet higher. We are in unchartered territory in human history right now. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it in a hurry. Where is all of that CO2 coming from? Well, here is a rough breakdown of the CO2 budget, if you will: About 30 percent comes from the generation of electricity--30, 35 percent. Another 30, 35 percent comes from transportation, the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles. The last 30, 35 percent comes from space heat and industrial use. So that is the budget that we have to deal with. How do we tackle that? With electrification, with the electricity coming from renewable sources. Now, if you have an electric vehicle and you are feeling really good about saving the environment, you are not saving the environment if the power for that electric vehicle comes from fossil fuels. You are saving the environment if the power for that electric vehicle comes from renewables. So that is what we are talking about, but there are problems with renewables. Remember, I said I had worked in the wind power business. The wind doesn't blow all the time. The Sun doesn't shine all the time. The term is ``intermittency.'' That is the issue. That is the issue with renewables--intermittency--the fact that there has to be something to supply power when the Sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. The answer to that is storage. The real Green New Deal is energy storage. If we can solve that problem in a cost-effective way, then we really can have a realistic, all-renewable future, because what you have with energy storage, plus renewables, is essentially baseload power without CO2. That is really the direction that we are moving in. However--and this is what I want to really stress--you can't be in favor of electrification; you can't be in favor of renewable power; you can't be in favor of electric vehicles if you are not in favor of mining the lithium that you need for the batteries or in covering a lot of farmers' fields with solar panels. You can't have those things without paying a price. It would be nice if you could. I would love it if I could wave a wand and say: We are going to get rid of fossil fuels, and we are going to have an all-renewable future. Yes, I want that, but we have to recognize that, in order to get there, there are some things we have to do that heretofore we really haven't been very likely to like. One of the other issues with renewable power is that a lot of the renewable power is in places where there aren't people. So we have to get that renewable power to the places where there are people. Do you know what that means? Transmission, new transmission lines, new rights of way. People aren't going to be too crazy about that, but you can't have a renewable energy future without having transmission, and you can't have a renewable energy future without having batteries or some storage technology that, chances are, is going to require Earth minerals that you are going to have to mine. Geography is a problem. Technology is a problem. This will require trade-offs. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about a global goal--we are talking about literally saving the Earth--but we have to understand that there are going to be costs to do so. Let's talk about permitting. One of my favorite stories is when God went to Moses and said: Moses, I have good news and bad news. Moses said: God, give me the good news. God says: I am going to empower you to part the waters of the Red Sea, allow my people to go free, and then have the waters come back and inundate Pharaoh's army. Moses says: That is wonderful, God. What is the bad news? God says: You have to prepare the environmental impact statement. We have got to understand that permitting is part of the process of going to a renewable future. Now, when I was the Governor of Maine, I had a very clear policy: no diminution--no cutting, no cutting corners--of environmental standards, but I wanted the most timely and predictable environmental permitting process in the country, and I don't think that those two things are in any way mutually exclusive. When I talk here and work with my colleagues here about permitting reform, I am talking--we are talking--about the process, not the standards. We are not talking about lowering the standards, saying that you can emit more or you don't have to meet clean water standards. I sit at Edmund Muskie's desk in my office. Lightning would strike me if I were lowering the water quality or air quality standards, but we have got to talk about a process that is timely and predictable. The estimates are that, to permit a mine in this country, it takes about 10 years--about 10 years. We don't have 10 years to spend on a permitting process if we are going to solve this problem in time to save the country and the planet. We have got to figure out how to do this in a more timely way. How are we going to do it? I don't know the details of the various discussions that are going on here, but I have some thoughts that I have suggested to Senator Manchin and others. One is one-stop shopping. You shouldn't have to go to five different Agencies. Go to one Agency that is in charge of the permitting process, and let them lead it. Don't make the applicant go to five, six, seven different Agencies. Secondly are deadlines--real deadlines, deadlines that mean something--so that the Agency, if it says 180 days, has got to have a decision in 180 days. Eisenhower retook Europe in 11 months. There is no reason that we can't get decisions out of some of these Agencies in less than a year. So deadlines and reasonable timeframes, I think, are part of this process, and an accelerated appeals process, where the appeal of an environmental decision on a renewable energy project, that is related to renewable energy, or that is related to our renewable energy future can go to the courts and get a fair hearing but on a timely basis and not go through a long process that takes, again, years. Another suggestion I have--and this goes back to my experience of working on renewable energy projects--is there should be some credit given for the nature of the project that you are doing. In other words, if you are doing a project that is going to contribute to the solution of the problem of global climate change, you shouldn't be treated as a strip mall. Some weight should be given to the import and the value-- the environmental value--of the project, vis-a-vis the incidental environmental costs--and I could be criticized for using the word ``incidental,'' but the smaller environmental costs that may be involved in getting there. I think that has got to be how we approach this whole permitting question. So why am I here today? I am here today to talk to my friends in the environmental community--and I do mean friends, people whom I have worked with all my life--to have them change the way they think about the environmental process and what they have conventionally and historically thought about this kind of action. Historically, if you go back to the beginning of the environmental movement in the sixties and seventies--and Lord, help me, I was there-- the environmental movement was about stopping things. The environmental movement in Maine began with a proposed oil refinery on our coast. People wanted to stop it because they didn't think it was the appropriate place. But if you think about that, a lot of the environmental movement has been about stopping things, stopping projects, stopping highways, stopping whatever. What we have to do now is think about facilitating getting things done in order to get to the renewable future that we want. I think that is a very, very important way to look at this process. You can't be for EVs if you are against mining lithium. Let me give you just a couple of numbers on what I am talking about. Copper--remember, I talked about transmission. Copper, copper wires to transmit electricity, the estimate is--I want to be sure this is right. The estimate is we are going to need as much copper annually by 2050 as has been mined in the entire prior history of the world. In 1 year, we are going to need that much. The estimate is that in order to achieve our climate goals, we are going to have to triple--triple--the grid: the wires, the rights of way, the towers. The grid infrastructure has to be tripled in order to absorb the new and transmitted--distribute the new energy that is going to be needed. If you have electric vehicles, you are going to need more wires to get the power--that is going to be a huge increase; between doubling and tripling is the estimate--of the strength of the grid. The International Energy Agency--not me and not some commercial group, but the International Energy Agency says that by 2040--that is not that long from now, barely over 15 years--we are going to need 42 times the amount of lithium that we have, 25 times more graphite, 21 times more cobalt, 19 times more nickel, and 7 times more rare-earth elements. Now, we have two choices: We can buy those things from other countries, particularly countries that may be potential adversaries. Do we really want to be dependent on China for this kind of essential material to our environmental future? I don't think so. But if we are going to say we don't want to import it, we have got to get it out of the ground here, and we can't spend 10 years deciding it. I am not saying lower the standards, but I am saying the process itself should not be used as a weapon to undermine projects that are necessary to achieve our ultimate climate goal. This is a change. This is a change of thinking that is required by the reality that we face. I am here because I want to face that reality. I want to do something about climate change. I want to take the actions necessary, not token actions but the real deal. But it is going to involve these enormous commitments of time, effort, and money and also our understanding--particularly in the environmental community--that there is no free lunch. On December 2, 1862, Abraham Lincoln came to this Congress to talk about the progress of the Civil War. His problem was that the Congress was being the Congress. They were doing politics, and he didn't feel they were really taking it seriously or understood the massive change that was sweeping over the country. At the end of that speech, the afternoon of December 2, 1862, Abraham Lincoln gave what I think is still the best analysis of how you deal with change that I have ever encountered, and I think it applies exactly in this situation. Lincoln said: The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, [therefore] we must rise--with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. And then here is the key line: We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. ``We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.'' ``Disenthrall'' means thinking new and different ways. Let go of the way you thought about these kinds of issues in the past. Disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our planet. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following article printed in the Record.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. I ask that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. KING. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize the outstanding career of Dr. Stephen Kress and his contributions to the restoration of seabird colonies in Maine and around the globe. For over 50 years, Dr. Kress has dedicated his life to preserving and reestablishing seabird colonies that had previously been decimated by hunting. His perseverance has been a driving force in the repopulation of Maine puffin colonies and various other seabird species throughout the world. Dr. Kress's restoration of seabird populations began in 1969 when he started with the National Audubon Society's Hog Island Education Camp on the coast of Maine. It was there that he learned of the devastation the Atlantic Puffin had experienced at the hands of hunters. In 1973 Dr. Kress launched Project Puffin, a novel approach to translocate puffin chicks from a colony at Great Island, Newfoundland, to Eastern Egg Rock in Maine. In the early years of Project Puffin, Dr. Kress hand-raised the chicks until they were fledglings. Under his leadership, the project grew to incorporate Seal Island National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, and he oversaw the translocation of over 1,000 puffin chicks over the next decade to both islands. These efforts were an immediate success, but attracting the fledglings back to the island to nest proved difficult. Through trial and error, Dr. Kress discovered and adopted innovative practices using vocalization playback, decoys, and mirrors to attract the migrating birds to return to the island. These methods are now known collectively as social attraction and are employed by ornithological experts internationally. Dr. Kress later applied social attraction techniques to seabird restoration projects across the globe, leading the way for the successful rehabilitation of colonies in Hawaii, Bermuda, Japan, China, and Taiwan. As of 2012, 128 seabird restoration projects had utilized social attraction and chick translocation techniques, for the benefit of nearly 50 species at locations in 14 countries. His work transformed ornithological conservation and preserved numerous species of endangered coastal birds, redefining the possibilities for seabird conservation. These projects are a testament to Dr. Kress's commitment to conservation, the environment, and ornithology. Dr. Kress's research opened new doors for conservation and his contributions to the scientific community have saved countless seabird colonies. As a result of his work, Maine islands are now home to some of the largest and most diverse seabird populations in the Gulf of Maine. His legacy will live on in the hundreds of people he has mentored during his career and the seabird populations our State is home to. I join with the people of Maine in commending Dr. Kress for his extraordinary efforts to preserve and cultivate our State's wildlife.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, as most of us here in the Senate know, this Chamber functions with a dedicated and able staff to support us. Because we are a relatively small body that has to oversee the actions of the far larger executive branch, we rely on specialists detailed from other Agencies throughout the government. It is really a two-way deal. When they come here, they learn about the intricacies of the legislative process and get to participate in it. In return, we benefit from their years of experience in the Agency they come from. In my case as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we rely on the Government Accountability Office or GAO staff who specialize in nuclear and space systems to help us on the programmatic details of a multitude of programs in the Department of Energy and Defense, and every year, the committee sponsors one of them to spend a year with us. For the past year, we were fortunate enough to have Ms. Camille Pease with us from the GAO as our detailee, and now, her year is up, and she is heading back. Because of the way the Armed Services Committee works in preparing for a markup, members such as myself and Senator Fischer, our ranking member on the subcommittee, spend a tremendous amount of time with staff, including Cami, on hearings and briefings in order to build a legislative record and develop legislation for our annual markup of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In every aspect, Cami was there to enrich us with her expertise on the National Nuclear Security Administration. In return, I hope she is wiser on how we work in this Chamber, and in the Armed Services Committee in particular, on a bipartisan legislative process that has managed to produce a NDAA for the past 61 years. So we thank you, Cami, for spending time with us, and we wish you the best on your return to the GAO. We hope your time with us will help you in the years to come. I hope you take back to the GAO that, when it comes to the national security of this nation, and the NDAA in particular, this Chamber does work in a bipartisan and productive fashion, and it is my hope it will continue to do so in the years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dana Totman for his 22 years of service at Avesta Housing and congratulate him on a well-deserved retirement. Under his leadership, Avesta Housing became northern New England's largest housing nonprofit and transformed the lives of individuals and families across Maine. Dana has been a tireless advocate for affordable housing and made it clear how drastically it improves lives and strengthens communities. While Dana cares about the bricks and mortar that become the homes of many, he cares most about the people who get to call these places home. It is these individuals who drive his passion. The Maine Affordable Housing Coalition, created by Dana, exemplifies his vision by giving those in need a voice and the ability to advocate for themselves. During the 2009 recession, Dana found a creative way to increase the supply of affordable homes through the development of a $50 million bond proposal. Known as the Green Affordable Housing Bond, this allowed low-income Mainers to obtain affordable, energy-efficient homes, and created jobs in the construction, architectural, and engineering sectors. Subsequently, when Maine seniors needed a voice for their growing housing needs, Dana created and promoted the $15 million Maine Affordable Housing Bond, the effort garnered support from 69 percent of Maine voters--one of the largest margin wins of a State bond initiative. Throughout his career, Dana navigated through the many obstacles and challenges Avesta Housing faced. His humility and quiet demeanor brought people and organizations together to demonstrate how affordable housing significantly strengthens communities' well-being. His ability to work closely with neighbors, listen to concerns, and understand the whole picture, furthered Avesta Housing's mission of giving everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, age, or race, a chance to have a home. Dana was raised on a Topsham dairy farm, and later lived in Brunswick, where he and his wife raised their two sons and were members of the school community as parents. Dana also volunteered to coach soccer and baseball teams, imparting many life lessons to the kids. He continues to mentor young people, inspiring future generations to dedicate their lives to giving back to their communities. Maine's business community has recognized Dana multiple times over the years for his exceptional leadership and contributions to equitable housing in Maine. It is a privilege to join with his colleagues, friends, and the people of Maine in recognizing Dana for demonstrating innovation, true excellence in his work, and unwavering compassion to those seeking--and finding--a home.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding contributions of an organization based in my hometown of Brunswick, ME. This year marks the 55th anniversary of Independence Association, and I could not be more grateful to everyone who has contributed to the organization's work to enrich our community by serving children and adults with developmental disabilities. For over half a century, Independence Association has helped individuals rise to their full potential, growing up and out as fully included, fully valued members of their communities. Their work, their creativity, and their contributions make all of us better. The Independence Association we know today has changed over the decades. Its inception dates back to 1967--a time in which institutionalization was still prevalent--when five families founded the Youth Development Center to chart a different course for their children. The Youth Development Center immediately demonstrated that the right people, resources, and support made an inclusive and independent life a reality for their children, and they soon welcomed others with additional needs as well. That organization grew and, in 1977, became Independence Association; since then, its staff, volunteers, and parents have gone on to empower hundreds of people with disabilities to enjoy enriching lives in the Maine communities we all love. Over the last 55 years, Independence Association has continued to be creative, collaborative, and comprehensive in supporting their clients' ever-evolving needs. Even during a pandemic, faced with severe staffing shortages, a challenging hiring environment, and stagnant reimbursement rates, Independence Association remains committed to the more than 400 clients they support and the hundreds of people they employ. The staff, volunteers, and community partners of Independence Association have expanded over the years, and they now offer a full range of services in nine Maine counties and more than 60 Maine cities and towns. Their services range from Spindleworks--a nationally recognized artist's collaboration, which created the State of Maine ornament for the White House Christmas tree in 2017--to single-level ``Aging in Place'' lifetime housing. Independence Association also provides transportation for clients who have jobs or volunteer commitments, skills training for community life, case management services, and boundless opportunities for growth and support. As a champion of all people, Independence Association has grown and adapted with the ever-changing needs of their clients. Their vision of empowering people with disabilities has never waned, and our State is stronger because of their work. I join with the people of Maine in thanking Independence Association for its passionate caring, commitment, and unwavering service to our communities and look forward to their continued impact on our State.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Joint Resolution Expressing Support For The People Of Ukraine which was passed overwhelmingly by the Maine State Legislature. Together, we recognize the importance of democratic institutions and values around the world, and we are resolute in fighting against the forces of authoritarianism. This joint resolution reiterates Maine people's support for peace, diplomacy, and the immediate end to the invasion.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, as the chair of the Senate National Parks Subcommittee and on behalf of Senator Daines, the Ranking Member of the Senate National Parks Subcommittee, today, I wish to recognize Betty Reid Soskin, who recently retired as the National Park Service's oldest active ranger. Betty spent a decade and a half sharing her personal experiences as a ranger at the Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Park in Richmond, CA. I want to thank Betty for her service and wish her well in her much-deserved retirement. Betty had a long path before landing at the National Park Service. She grew up in a Cajun-Creole, African-American family in Oakland, CA. Her family was forced to leave their home in New Orleans after the ``Great Flood'' in 1927, and they moved to Oakland to join Betty's maternal grandfather. After graduating from Castlemont High School, Betty went to work as a file clerk in a segregated union hall, Boilermaker's A-36, during World War II. Later, she and her husband, Mel Reid, opened Reid's Records, one of the first Black-owned music stores; the store remained open until fall of 2019. Betty also worked for a Berkley city council member and as a field representative in West Contra Costa County for two members of the California State Assembly. In the early 2000s, Betty was involved in the planning meetings with the city of Richmond and the National Park Service to develop the management plan for the Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historic Park. She also worked with the National Park Service on a grant to cover untold stories of African-Americans on the home front during WWII, which led to a temporary position working for the National Park Service at the age of 84. Betty became a permanent National Park Service employee in 2011 and has been leading public programs and sharing her personal stories and observations with park visitors ever since. Betty gained national fame in 2013, during the government shutdown, when media outlets wanted to interview her as the oldest National Park Service ranger, to get her take on the shutdown. Betty participated in numerous national television interviews but managed to stay out of the political fray, saying that she wanted to focus what little time she had left on getting back to work, sharing her stories of the WWII home front. In 2015, Betty was selected by the National Park Service to participate in the national tree-lighting ceremony at the White House and introduced President Barack Obama in the national telecast on the annual PBS special. In fall 2019, Betty suffered a stroke and spent months in therapy, returning to work just before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Prior to her retirement, Betty started doing weekly virtual visits to continue to share her perspectives with visitors. Like many park rangers, Betty's path to the National Park Service may not have been the most direct, but we have all benefited from her decision to dedicate herself to public service. Her firsthand experiences on the home front during WWII help provide critical lessons for all Americans, regardless of their age, and we are so thankful that Betty chose to spend so many years of her life sharing her experiences with us all. We will certainly miss her insights and passion, but she has earned this retirement. On behalf of myself and Senator Daines, I extend our best wishes to Betty and thank her again her service.

Mr. KING

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 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.

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.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Judge D. Brock Hornby of Cape Elizabeth, ME. Last week, after more than 40 years of service on both Maine's State and Federal courts, Judge Hornby presided over his final proceeding at the U.S. District Court in Portland. I want to honor Judge Hornby's incredible career, thank him for his service, and wish him well in this next chapter. Judge Hornby is a native of Manitoba, Canada, and earned his bachelor's degree in English and history in Canada before coming to the United States to attend Harvard Law School. The year after graduating from Harvard, Judge Hornby began teaching at my alma mater, the University of Virginia Law School--where I am certain he obtained the wit and polish he would carry throughout his career. He moved to Maine in 1974, became a citizen, and began to practice law in Portland at Perkins, Thompson, Hinckley, and Keddy. In 1982, Judge Hornby became a U.S. magistrate judge, serving in Portland and Bangor until 1988. He then served on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for 2 years. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. District Court, and the Senate confirmed him to this position by unanimous consent. At the district court, he served as chief judge from 1996 to 2003. During his distinguished career, Judge Hornby has presided over thousands of criminal and civil cases. Some have grabbed headlines, others may only impact those involved, but in all his cases, his colleagues say that he brought a sense of fairness to the bench. Judge Hornby played a critical role in changing strict Federal sentencing guidelines, allowing judges to use their discretion in sentencing the defendants before them. Through his career, Judge Hornby has been a fair and neutral arbiter of the law, offering respect to all who entered his courtroom. While we will miss his insight, intellect, and experience on the bench, he has earned this retirement. I extend my best wishes to Judge Hornby and thank him again for his unwavering service--the State of Maine is lucky to call him one of our own.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I voted to proceed to the consideration of the Women's Health Protection Act today with some reluctance, not because of any doubts about the substance of the bill--I have been a strong supporter of reproductive choice throughout my public life--but because of concern about and disagreement with some of the provisions of its introductory ``Findings'' section. Several of these provisions assert that opposition to reproductive services, including abortion, is rooted in racism and misogyny. I don't believe that this is true, and I do believe that it is unfair and insulting to the millions of Americans whose opposition to abortion is rooted in their faith and deeply held moral principles. While I disagree with their conclusion--that it is appropriate for the government to impose these beliefs on others who do not share them and thereby intrude into the personal medical choices of all women--I don't question their motives and strongly disagree with the language of the bill that does so. My vote today was not a vote on the final passage of the bill, but only to bring it to the Senate floor for debate and amendment. Had the motion succeeded, I, along with many of my colleagues, would have voted to remove this inflammatory and unnecessary language from the bill. Fundamentally, this issue is about who should have the power to make this most personal and difficult choice, the government or individual women in consultation with their doctors. While respecting the motives of those who disagree, I think that power should rest with the woman.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 599 and Calendar No. 693; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. KING. Senator, are you up for a question? Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. President, I would like to direct a question through the Chair to the Senator from Indiana and ask the reason for his objection.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, do I get a response from the Senator from Indiana? Mr. President, we have two qualified nominees, reported out on a bipartisan basis by the Armed Services Committee at a moment of heightened international tension. The Senator from Missouri--I said Indiana--I say the Senator from Missouri objected with no reason whatsoever. I asked him for his reasoning, and he did not respond; he walked out of the room. I don't understand such an irresponsible action. This is a matter of national security. We have no reason for this objection. I understand that he is objecting to all nominees at the Department of Defense because he is upset about accountability for the withdrawal from Afghanistan. We have taken action to deal with that question. In the National Defense Authorization Act that we just passed, there was a Commission created expressly to examine the issue of Afghanistan--how we got in, why we got in, what we did, how we left--on a bipartisan basis. I believe that was reported out by the committee unanimously in the National Defense Authorization Act after the committee's markup. So that is accountability. In addition, the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, which I also serve on, had at least 10--I think it was more like a dozen-- hearings on the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the latter part of 2021, before the end of the year--a dozen hearings. I was going to ask the Senator from Missouri how many hearings were held when he was a member of the Armed Services Committee and his party was in charge of the committee, how many hearings were held on President Trump's agreement to leave Afghanistan in Doha in February of 2020. That was the decision that led to President Biden effectuating the treaty--not the treaty but the agreement that the Trump administration had made with the Taliban that led to the evacuation of Americans and American troops from Afghanistan. You know how many hearings were held by the Armed Services Committee on the Doha agreement, which was effectively guaranteeing we would leave Afghanistan with some minor conditions? Zero. Zero. Talk about accountability. There were no hearings or discussion in the committee that I can recall of the Doha agreement, where the Trump administration agreed with the Taliban that we would leave by May 1 of 2021, as long as the Taliban didn't attack our troops. And now the Senator from Missouri is holding up nominees because of some--he doesn't like the way the evacuation occurred or he wants more questions from the Secretary of Defense. We had hearings over and over. And what is going on here is a compromise of national security because the Senator from Missouri has questions that, I guess, haven't been answered, although I believe he was at those hearings, had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the Secretary of Defense and other officials of the Biden administration. But here we are, at a moment of national tension--and that is putting it mildly--with nominees who are in charge of space and readiness. The Senator from Missouri today blocked consideration and confirmation of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and for Space, two areas of critical national concern, for reasons that he wouldn't say. He walked out of the room. He walked out of the room. That is not accountability. If you are going to do something that endangers national defense and block nominees who have been reported out by the committee on a bipartisan basis, accountability is standing in this room and telling the American people why he is doing it. Accountability means being responsible for your actions, not saying ``I object'' and then walking out, and that is what happened just now on this floor. I have never seen anything like it. These are well-qualified nominations, reported out by the committee on a bipartisan basis, and we need them in these jobs. We need them now, today, in these jobs, and now that is not going to be possible because one Senator, for reasons that he refused to explain or expand upon, objected. That is not responsible. That is not responsible. That is endangering national security. And to do so without any explanation is just, I believe, not appropriate for a Member of this body. So we will renew these requests at a later date and hope that the Senator will have thought better of this action and allow these nominations to go forward as requested by a bipartisan majority of the Armed Services Committee. I yield the floor.