Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to talk about how the President's economic policies are failing to serve the lower and middle-income Americans he claims are his priority.

The President talks about wanting to give American families ``a little more breathing room,'' but his Big Government, big spending policies are taking away Americans' breathing room, as cash-strapped families struggling with the effects of the President's historic inflation crisis can attest.

Today, I want to talk about another set of the President's policies that aren't serving Americans, and that is the President's energy policy. Since the day he took office, President Biden has pursued an agenda that is hostile to conventional sources of energy; namely, oil and natural gas. He set the tone on his very first day in office when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline--an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway, and was to be paired with $1.7 billion in private investment in renewable energy to fully offset--fully offset--its operating emissions.

He also almost immediately froze new oil and gas leases on Federal land, sending a clear signal to oil and gas producers that his administration would be reluctant to work with them to increase American energy production. And he has continued along the same lines ever since, from raising taxes on conventional energy to proposing a rule that would effectively mandate that automakers only make electric vehicles beginning in the near future. The President's policies have targeted conventional energy.

In March, the President announced that he would close off a substantial part of the Arctic to oil and gas development. In the same week, his Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule--a so-called good neighbor rule that threatens to close a number of fossil fuel- powered power plants.

So why is all this a problem? After all, Members of both parties support alternative energy technologies. Why are the President's efforts to shut down conventional energy production a problem?

Well, the President's attacks on conventional energy are a problem because conventional energy still plays an essential role in providing a steady, reliable energy supply to American consumers.

No matter how much the White House might wish it weren't the case, the technology to fully transition the United States to clean energy simply doesn't exist yet, and all of the Green New Deal, anti- conventional energy policies in the world can't change that basic fact.

What the President's Green New Deal, anti-conventional energy policies can do, however, is jeopardize our Nation's energy supply and drive up prices for American consumers. Americans know the energy price hikes of the Biden administration all too well. From restricting oil and gas production to imposing tax hikes on conventional energy, President Biden's energy policies have driven up Americans' energy costs, but that will be nothing compared to what will happen if the President succeeds in choking off and drastically reducing conventional energy production. Prices will soar; blackouts, brownouts, and calls for energy rationing will become commonplace; and our economic and national security will be in jeopardy.

We are not at the point yet where we are experiencing blackouts and brownouts on a regular basis--unless, I guess, you are a resident of California, whose energy grid is known for being unreliable because of the State's overreliance on renewables--but the President's policies could push us over the edge.

In February, the PJM Interconnection, which manages a substantial part of Eastern America's electric grid, released a report warning that fossil fuel plants are being forced to retire at a faster rate than new renewables can be brought online, at a rate of roughly 2 to 1. In other words, we are rapidly approaching a situation where we simply don't have the ability to keep up with

the electricity demand, and as the report underscored, that situation is being driven by anti-conventional energy policies.

The Wall Street Journal, which weighed in after the PJM report was released, noted that ``most projected powerplant retirements are `policy driven.' '' That is what the report says. In other words, powerplants aren't closing because they have reached the end of their operating lives; they are closing because of policies designed to discourage conventional energy.

I have already mentioned the EPA's new good neighbor rule, which could force powerplants in 22 States to close. Then there are things like utility company environmental, social, and governance--or ESG-- policies. They are policies that utility companies can voluntarily adopt but that this administration wants to mandate, which the PJM report highlights as a factor in plant closures.

Not only do overreaching ESG policies force some of our most reliable energy facilities offline, these facilities are also being replaced with technologies like solar that are inherently intermittent and can't be dispatched in times of high demand.

The Wall Street Journal notes that ``Illinois and New Jersey climate policies could reduce generation by 8,900 [megawatts].'' That amount of energy would be enough to power over 7 million households.

So, in other words, policies that discourage conventional energy are already having an effect and threatening our Nation's energy supply. If the President continues to pursue these types of policies, his Presidency may be remembered not just for a historic inflation crisis but for setting off a long-term energy crisis caused by an unreliable and insufficient energy supply.

Instead of trying to bring about a clean energy future before we have the technology to get us there, the President should be pursuing an ``all of the above'' energy policy--an energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available energy sources, both renewable and conventional.

I am a strong supporter of clean energy, like so many of my Republican colleagues, but unlike Democrats, Republicans recognize that our Nation is not going to be fully transitioning to 100-percent zero- emission energy anytime soon no matter how much the administration would like it to. There are a lot of hurdles to be crossed before we can rely solely on clean energy.

So Republicans are committed to supporting both alternative energy and the responsible development and deployment of the conventional energy we need to keep our Nation's energy grid reliable and Americans' energy costs down. For evidence, you need look no further than the energy legislation recently passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives, which would advance both responsible conventional energy development and clean energy technologies.

Predictably, the Senate Democrat leader has declared this legislation ``dead on arrival'' in the U.S. Senate. Democrats are so beholden to the radical environmental wing of their party that anything that doesn't adhere to their Green New Deal orthodoxy isn't up for discussion. But Democrats' opposition is unfortunate, not just because this legislation would help ensure an adequate supply of conventional energy but also--also--because it would help advance alternative energy projects.

Republicans' legislation would tackle permitting delays, which are a leading impediment to energy development, including alternative energy development. Republicans' legislation would also actually help support the electric car development that Democrats are so committed to by enabling the development of critical mineral resources here at home-- the same critical minerals that are essential ingredients in electric car batteries.

While I am on the subject of cars, I will say that the President made one right decision on energy last Friday by approving the sale of E15 fuel for this summer. Americans saved $57 million last year thanks to summertime E15 sales. With the war in Ukraine continuing to stress fuel markets, renewing this E15 permission will help drive down the expected summer surge in gas prices while at the same time benefiting our environment and offsetting production cuts from OPEC.

But while I am glad the President listened to calls from me and others to extend E15 sales through the summer, it is unfortunately one of just a handful of times when the President has opted for reliable and affordable energy instead of an unrealistic anti-conventional energy policy.

An ``all of the above'' energy policy--a policy that embraces both conventional and renewable energy sources--is essential for keeping energy prices affordable, ensuring the reliability of our Nation's energy supply, and keeping our Nation secure. If the President doesn't start encouraging conventional as well as renewable energy development, consumers and our country are going to pay a heavy price.

The President has already ensured that he will be remembered for a historic inflation crisis. He should make sure he isn't remembered as the instigator of a future energy crisis as well.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

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

Mr. President, it is about time. Ninety days after his last meeting with Speaker McCarthy and after weeks of pointblank refusal to engage in discussion, President Biden finally agreed to meet with the Speaker about debt ceiling legislation.

I will say it again. It is about time. If the administration's estimate is correct, the United States is mere weeks away from reaching the limit of its borrowing capacity--which means, of course, that the President has to reach an agreement with the Republican-led House of Representatives on a debt ceiling bill, but the President has been completely AWOL on this issue.

While I am very pleased that the President's Treasury Secretary has apparently managed to convey the urgency of the situation to the President and that the President is actually going to sit down with Speaker McCarthy , it remains to be seen how seriously the President will take negotiations.

He certainly hasn't been taking this issue seriously so far.

House Republicans, on the other hand, have been taking this issue seriously. They have offered legislation to raise the debt ceiling, paired with spending reforms to slow the rate at which we are accumulating debt. But up until 18 hours ago, the President was refusing to engage on the issue at all.

The day Republicans passed their debt ceiling legislation last week, the President was asked if he would sit down with Speaker McCarthy to negotiate on the debt limit. His reply: I am happy to meet with the Speaker but not on the debt limit. The debt limit isn't negotiable.

In other words, it is my way or the highway. You either accept my position on the debt limit--a debt ceiling increase with no spending reforms--or I will let our Nation default.

If that is not an unserious position, I don't know what is.

The fact is, in recent history, increases in the debt limit have almost always been the result of negotiations, and 7 of the last 10--7 of the last 10--debt limit increases have included some mix of policy or budgetary changes rather than simply a straight increase. No matter how much President Biden would like his word on the debt ceiling to be law, the fact of the matter is that in our system of government the President does not have absolute power. And when the American people have sent divided government to Washington, as they did in the last election, then if you can't persuade the other side to see things your way, you have to negotiate. You have to compromise.

President Biden understood this at one time. Back in 2011, here is what then-Vice President Biden had to say about lawmakers who didn't want to negotiate on a debt ceiling increase:

How can you explain the fact that grown men and women are

unwilling to budge up till now, and still some of them are

still unwilling to budge, by taking an absolute position:

``My way or no way.'' That's not governing. That's no way to

govern. You can't govern that way.

That from President, then-Vice President, Biden back in 2011.

Then-Vice President Biden was right, and I am very much hoping that he will remember those words now and not only sit down with Speaker McCarthy but actually commit to reaching a compromise.

I was not encouraged by a reference from the Senate Democratic leader's office to sitting down with congressional leaders to discuss a ``clean'' debt limit bill. That hardly displays an understanding of the fact that any debt ceiling legislation will require compromise between the White House and House Republicans.

It is also the height of hypocrisy for the Democrat leader to talk about a ``clean'' debt limit bill when just a few years ago he was using the debt ceiling as leverage to negotiate with President Trump. But, apparently, ``one rule for me, another for thee'' are the Democrats' watchwords.

Our Nation's debt situation is very serious. Our current national debt is over $31 trillion--yes, $31 trillion--and it is projected to grow to more than $50 trillion over the next decade, at least if the President's budget were to be adopted. That is an unfathomable amount of money, and more to the point, it is an entirely dangerous amount of money.

Our national debt has already exceeded the size of our economy, which is a very dangerous marker to hit. Under our current trajectory, by 2033, debt held by the public will be at the highest level relative to GDP--relative to the size of our economy--literally, in history, exceeding even post-World War II levels.

In fact, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 50 cents of every dollar our country borrows in the next 10 years will go just toward paying interest on our national debt.

Debt at that level threatens economic growth. It sucks money away from essential government spending on things like Social Security and Medicare and our national defense, and it leaves us excessively dependent on other countries, sometimes hostile countries, that hold our Nation's debt. And for all of those reasons and more, it threatens our national security.

House Republicans are absolutely right to take this opportunity to insist on some attempt to at least slow our rate of spending, and the American people would seem to agree. A recent poll found that 65 percent of Americans--including--including 58 percent of Democrats, believe that the ``debt ceiling debate is a good time to force tough issues, like cutting future spending to reduce the deficit.'' That is the way the question was worded in the poll.

Let me just repeat that.

Sixty-five percent of Americans, including fifty-eight percent of Democrats, believe that the ``debt ceiling debate is a good time to force tough issues, like cutting future spending to reduce the deficit.'' Let's hope that Democrats are paying attention.

The ball is in the President's court. House Republicans have been at the table for a while now. They have offered ideas. They have put forward and passed legislation. Now it is up to President Biden. He can either get serious about this fundamental responsibility, engage in real negotiations with Speaker McCarthy , and arrive at a genuine compromise on debt ceiling legislation or he can continue to refuse to meaningfully engage on this issue and ensure that his Presidency will be remembered not just for a massive inflation crisis but for a Democratic default on the debt. The choice is his.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.