Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

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, if you ask any Republican what kind of energy policy he or she supports, you will likely hear the phrase ``an `all of the above' energy policy.'' Today, I want to take a minute to talk about, first, what we mean by an all-of-the-above energy policy and second, why we support this kind of policy.

So what is an ``all of the above'' energy policy?

Well, as the name suggests, an ``all of the above'' energy policy is an energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available energy resources, both renewable and conventional. It is important not to ignore the conventional part, as many of my colleagues across the aisle would like to do. It is not enough to embrace renewable energy, even multiple types of renewables. And, for reasons I am going to discuss, any energy policy that doesn't embrace conventional as well as renewable sources of energy is insufficient. It places both our energy security and energy affordability in jeopardy.

Back to my explanation, as I said, an ``all of the above'' energy policy is an energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available energy sources. It embraces wind, solar, hydropower, biofuels, biomass, geothermal, nuclear, oil, natural gas, and more. That is the definition.

Now, why is an ``all of the above'' energy policy important? Why not, for example, eliminate fossil fuels from the mix? Or why not choose one or two renewable fuels and put all of our energies into advancing those one or two technologies to hasten the arrival of a clean energy future?

Well, there are a number of reasons why these options or those options and any option that doesn't embrace the full range of available energy technologies are a bad idea.

First of all, the fact of the matter is that we are simply not yet at the point where we can rely solely on clean energy technologies. We will still need conventional energy, and we are going to continue to need conventional energy resources and, in particular, natural gas for the foreseeable future.

My State of South Dakota actually derives a huge portion of our electricity generation from renewables, notably wind and hydroelectric, totaling about 82 percent of utility-scale production in South Dakota. But conventional fuels, nevertheless, play an essential role in electricity generation in South Dakota.

Wind, like solar and other renewables, by its nature is intermittent, even in places like South Dakota, where wind is a regular feature. And because technology has not yet advanced to the point where we can store up sufficient renewable energy to power an electric grid, even places like my State that rely heavily on renewables for electricity generation depend on conventional energy sources like coal and natural gas to keep the power on consistently.

California is another State with significant production from renewables, like hydropower and solar, but the availability of those sources are affected by variables like cloud cover and drought. And while California generally gets a lot of sunshine, again, the

technology to effectively store energy from those renewables at the scale necessary to power California's grid is simply not here yet. It is probably fair to say that one reason California's electricity grid is known for being unreliable is because the State is overly reliant on renewables without sufficient backup from conventional energy sources to meet demand.

Now, I think we are unquestionably going to get to the point where we can store renewable energy more efficiently and on a large scale, but we are not there yet. It is important to recognize that fact and to recognize that the availability of consistent, reliable energy in this country is still dependent on a consistent, reliable supply of conventional energy sources.

An ``all of the above'' energy policy isn't just a reliability imperative. It is also a national security imperative. Having a secure and stable energy supply is critical to our Nation's security. Our military bases and hospitals, for example, can't afford energy blackouts.

Again, having a secure and stable supply requires embracing the full spectrum of available energy sources, including the conventional energy sources that ensure the reliability of our Nation's electricity supply.

Furthermore, embracing the full spectrum of available resources includes developing domestic resources so that we are not overly reliant on supplies from other countries. The energy challenges and soaring costs countries like Germany have faced over the past year, owing to their heavy reliance on Russian energy, are a timely reminder of the importance of developing domestic--domestic--energy supplies.

Aside from energy security and reliability, an ``all of the above'' energy policy is essential because we don't yet know exactly what a clean energy future will look like. There are still a lot of challenges to work out with renewables and clean energy technologies. As I said, we have not yet developed the technology to store renewable energy on a large scale without significant efficiency loss.

There are a number of other challenges with clean energy technologies. Electric car batteries, for example, are heavily reliant on critical minerals. We currently rely heavily on other countries--not all of them politically or environmentally friendly--for our critical mineral supply. Environmentalists are, of course, loathe to tap our own natural resources. The same constraints affect batteries necessary to expand commercial and residential energy storage.

And while wind and solar energy are producing record amounts of electricity, each have their own end-of-life challenges for recycling and disposal as they are replaced.

Nuclear power provides a valuable source of clean energy, but construction costs are staggering, and we still haven't fully arrived at a solution for storing nuclear waste.

And the list goes on.

This isn't to say that American ingenuity won't solve some of these challenges or that conventional energy has none of its own, but that is exactly why we need to keep exploring all of these technologies and the opportunities and challenges that they present.

The fact of the matter is that our country's energy future will continue to be multifaceted, not reliant exclusively or predominantly on one or two energy technologies. For one thing, different areas of the country will have different availability when it comes to renewables, like the abundance of wind on the Great Plains. Even if we significantly improve the storage and transmission situation, it is likely that it will always be most efficient for different areas of the country to rely most heavily on the energy resources that they have closest to home.

So, as I said, it is important that we move forward with developing the full range of energy resources and not attempt to put all of our eggs in the same basket or to have the government pick winners and losers. Excessive government direction runs the risk of diminishing or cutting off innovation in the technologies that could be the future of clean energy.

We should be encouraging the exploration of all clean energy avenues and then seeing what the market ultimately gravitates toward, which is likely to be the technologies that are simultaneously practical, affordable, and effective.

The clean energy evolution away from coal toward cleaner burning natural gas, which has been a major driver of emissions reduction, was driven not by top-down direction from government--certainly not by government ideologues here in Washington--but by private industry, which saw the next wave of energy production and harnessed it.

Finally, we need an ``all of the above'' energy policy to keep energy prices affordable for American families.

Discouraging conventional energy exploration and production--or forcing a move to renewable sources before we have the technology available to ensure that renewables can deliver a reliable and affordable supply--is a good way to make Americans' energy bills continue to soar.

An ``all of the above'' energy policy is the way to guarantee an affordable and reliable energy supply, and Members of both parties-- both parties--should be embracing an ``all of the above'' approach to American energy. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. Instead, Democrats are pursuing increasingly extreme, Green New Deal policies designed to discourage investment in the exploration of and the production of conventional energy, without regard to whether or not we are anywhere near to having the resources and technology to move beyond conventional energy.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act that the Democrats passed last August contained a series of tax hikes on conventional energy production that are driving up Americans' energy bills. It also contained a lot of funding for Green New Deal fantasies that are likely to achieve nothing more than wasting taxpayer dollars.

I am a big and a long-time supporter of clean energy. I have a record that goes back to my days in the House of Representatives, and I am confident that we will get to a day when we will be able to rely almost exclusively on clean energy technologies, especially when you factor in carbon capture paired with clean natural gas. But we are not there yet. Until that day comes, we need to embrace an ``all of the above'' energy policy for energy security, for energy reliability, and to keep Americans' energy bills affordable.

I hope that more of my colleagues across the aisle will come to realize this reality before they seriously impair the stability and security of our Nation's energy supply.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. President, in his State of the Union Address last month, the President expressed an encouraging desire for bipartisanship. But I said, at the time, that I hoped his words would be matched by his actions. After all, the President spoke about being a President for all Americans in his inaugural address. But his first 2 years in office were not exactly distinguished by bipartisanship.

So while I was encouraged by the President's words in his State of the Union Address, as I said, I am looking for them to be matched by his actions, and renominating a slew of extreme nominees, as the President has done so far this year, is no way to start.

So far this year, the President has renominated at least 16 individuals who were unable to get any bipartisan support in the last Congress. They include an individual with serious unanswered questions about his possible role in a movement to push out senior career officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in favor of Biden loyalists, multiple individuals aligned with Democrats' radical Green New Deal agenda, a nominee who has repeatedly embraced anti-police rhetoric, multiple abortion extremists, a leftist litigator who has called the U.S. Senate and the electoral college anti-democratic institutions and who has admitted that he is motivated by his hatred of conservatives, and the list goes on.

And then, of course, there is the nominee who recently appeared in front of the Senate Commerce Committee for the third time: Gigi Sohn. This is Ms. Sohn's third nomination to the Federal Communications Commission during the Biden administration. Her previous two nominations stalled thanks to her inability to garner any bipartisan support, and with good reason, because Gigi Sohn has to be the poster child for terrible Presidential nominees, although I suppose the Biden judicial nominee who couldn't explain article II of the Constitution should also be in the running for that title of worst Presidential nominee.

I have serious policy disagreements with Ms. Sohn on multiple issues. She not only wants to bring back the heavy-handed internet regulation of the Obama administration, but she wants to go further and have the FCC regulate broadband rates and set data caps. This would discourage broadband investment and threaten U.S. leadership in 5G, as well as diminish internet access opportunities for Americans outside of major urban and suburban areas.

As a resident of a rural State, I also have serious concerns about Ms. Sohn's position on rural broadband. She has been publicly hostile to the efforts of rural broadband companies to expand reliable internet access to rural areas, while at the same time she supported the use of scarce government dollars to overbuild networks in already well-served areas.

Her hostility to rural broadband led one former Democrat Senator to ask how Democrats can ``support rural broadband expansion and also support Gigi Sohn.''

But my concerns with Ms. Sohn don't end there. I not only have serious policy disagreements with Ms. Sohn. I have serious questions about her character and fitness for the office for which she is nominated.

The Federal Communications Commission has jurisdiction over radio, TV, and the internet, which means that it deals with a number of sensitive issues--notably, free speech issues. And, for that reason, it calls for Commissioners who are thoughtful, fair, and impartial.

Ms. Sohn is none of these. She is a virulent and unapologetic partisan known for speaking disparagingly of conservative media outlets--the same outlets, I would add, that she would be regulating-- and the politicians who disagree with her.

Her nomination is opposed by a wide range of organizations, including the left-of-center Progressive Policy Institute, which opposes her due to a ``pattern of illiberal intolerance for voices on the left who dissent from her hard left orthodoxies.''

Ms. Sohn is the very opposite of fair and impartial, and I can think of few

candidates who would be more detrimental to the fair and impartial adjudication of media issues and the protection of free speech on public airwaves.

But the problems with her nomination don't even end there. Ms. Sohn has raised serious ethics questions recently with her political donations to several Democrat Senators at the same time that her nomination was before the U.S. Senate.

One of those donations was actually given to a member of the Commerce Committee, which, of course, is the committee considering her nomination.

Ms. Sohn may not have intended to influence Senators considering her nomination, but, at the very least, her decision to donate to these Senators while her nomination is before Congress gives the appearance of impropriety and raises serious questions about her judgment.

But her ethical issues don't end there.

She was less than forthcoming with the Commerce Committee about her time on the board of a company that was found to be operating in violation of copyright laws.

And questions remain about how she got the substantial settlement against her company drastically reduced.

Ms. Sohn has volunteered to recuse herself, if she is confirmed, on a variety of issues related to broadcasting and copyright violations because of her involvement with this company and the settlement.

But I am hard-pressed to understand why we would choose a Commissioner who would have to recuse herself from participating in substantial parts of the FCC's work.

Unfortunately, there is a lot more I could say about the problems with Ms. Sohn's nomination, but I will stop here.

Suffice it to say that I cannot think of a less appropriate candidate for this position.

Instead of continuing to attempt to place a virulent partisan like Ms. Sohn at the FCC, the President should nominate a qualified candidate who will do his or her job in a fair and impartial manner.

And as I said at the beginning, if the President truly wants to usher in an era of bipartisanship in this period of divided government, he could start by rethinking some of the highly partisan renominations he has made in this Congress and consider nominating individuals who are able to gain at least some bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).

(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)