George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I acknowledge the very good work of my friend, colleague, and neighbor to the south of us from Washington State, Senator Cantwell. She has been a partner throughout this 2-year process we have been engaged in as we have tried to formulate and format a renewed energy policy for this country, something that has not been done in close to a decade.

We acknowledged early on that there were going to be policy differences we each have, given where we come from and some differing views, but we were committed to working together to work through the thorny issues, to work toward consensus, not only that she and I could come to but our whole committee and, ultimately, the Senate. We were successful in doing that.

I also acknowledge the good work of Senator Cantwell's staff, as well as my staff, on the Energy Committee. These folks have been working tirelessly for 2 years, but more immediately--and when I say tirelessly, pretty much 24/7 for the past several weeks, in trying to get us to a point where instead of talking about what might have been in an energy bill, being able to stand in front of my colleagues and tell them these are the policy changes that we will now see placed into law.

I had truly wished I would not be in a situation where I would have to come to the floor and speak negatively about where we are right now because, as Senator Cantwell outlined, the process we have been engaged in is one that we are proud of, but also that the institution should be proud of.

Our committees are designed to be incubators of good ideas and how we then allow these ideas to materialize and come together through good debate, amendments, refinement and then bringing that forward to the full body, again, for further work and refinement.

We have done it by the book. There are not too many things in Congress that look like what you learned about how a bill becomes law. I am looking at the young pages sitting here. In your classes, in American Government, you learn about how a bill becomes law.

If you read that and you see what happens around here, you would say: these are two different universes. You are nodding because you know you are seeing that.

What we have attempted to do and what we have done for the past 2 years is to allow our committees to work, to take the good ideas from energy-producing States such as Alaska and Louisiana, and to work with colleagues from the interior of the country with views and ideas that are perhaps different than ours, building consensus with energy policy, with resources, with access. We did it. We have been that textbook example of regular order process.

I am actually told that they have a training course or a training program offered in the Congress that walks committee staff through examples of how a bill should be moved through a committee. Just the other day, I was told that our bill, the Energy bill, is the model that is being used as what to do in that training program.

This is quite the compliment; however we still have to get it over the finish line. This is where Senator Cantwell and I are so frustrated. This is where we are so frustrated because, after 2 years of work and being this close to the finish line, we are being denied that opportunity to share this success and all because of lack of action over in the other Chamber.

We started this Energy bill by convening ideas. We held hearings in Washington, in Alaska, and other places in between. We gathered the ideas for what we hoped was going to be the first major Energy and Natural Resources bill signed into law in nearly a decade. We held oversight hearings and legislative hearings. We reviewed over 115 separate bills. We spent weeks negotiating a base text of the bipartisan bill. We held markups where our bill drew support from nearly all of our Members. Then we brought it here to the floor.

Yes, we had some bumps along the way. Flint, which certainly needed to be addressed, was part of it. That seems like ancient history now. But we persevered. We worked through all of the issues. We added more priorities for our Members, to the point where over 80 different Senators had their priorities incorporated into our bill.

Then, in April, 85 Members of this body--85 Members--voted in favor of passage of this bill. When we think of all that was contained in it, to gain that level of consensus, I think the Senator from Washington and I were doing something positive, to get everybody on board.

Then the House responded to our Energy bill in late May, and in July, we went to a formal conference. We began work right away. The negotiations started just about immediately, even before the first formal meeting of our conference.

So think about it. We have been working this conference between the two bodies since July--and not just on an occasional basis; rather, we have been working this aggressively. During this conference, we have held more than 75 bipartisan and bicameral negotiating sessions at the staff level. There have been countless more meetings and daily interactions amongst our staff. The final conference report includes provisions from 74 Members of the Senate and 224 Members of the House. That means there is input from almost 60 percent of the U.S. Congress included in the conference report. This is not a bill where we are cramming it through; this is a measure of considerable consensus.

The chairmen and the ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction, whether it is here in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources, the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Science Committee, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee--we have been meeting to resolve our differences. Again, staff has been working around the clock. Just this weekend, we went through hundreds of pages to close out all of the issues. Again, we did it by the book. We did what we were supposed to be doing. We were the team players here. We adhered to the regular order process.

Senator Cantwell said we were doing the ``normal'' process. But I think what we are doing now is extraordinary. It is not normal--because it seems that, if there is guerilla warfare that is going on, that seems to be the way to move a bill nowadays. That does not send a very powerful message nor set a good example for how to advance a consensus measure such as we have with the Energy bill.

We were really on the right track until just a couple of weeks ago when it became pretty apparent that the House was, plainly stated, just done. They were finished. They stopped negotiating in good faith. They stopped trying to work to reach agreement.

So we are at that point where we have the House going out. We are told we here in the Senate are going to be wrapping up shop. But, as Senator Cantwell has outlined, what colleagues need to know is what is being left behind on the table. It is not just the guts of this conference bill that we have been negotiating that is on the table; what is on the table a tremendous amount of time and effort put forth into a good committee process that has built a consensus and a good product. That is a problem, and I think it is something we are going to have to work on. It looks like we are going to have to work on this aggressively in the next year.

There has been a lot of speculation about what is really going on. What is the problem? Why can't you get a deal? Well, I mentioned that we have closed out every aspect of this bill with the exception of two issues, but there have been a lot of excuses out there that we don't have enough time; the bill is too complicated; there is not enough in it; then suddenly, there is too much in it. So we worked to address all of that, and we got it down to two issues. Both of those issues can be easily resolved in plenty of time for us around here if everybody is willing to sit down and work through them in good faith. In fact, on both of those issues, the Senate has already written--we have already proposed the modifications that were necessary to reach the final agreement. What happened when we sent them over? We wait. It is going to be half an hour, an hour, and now it is half a day. That is not good faith.

I will give one specific example. This relates to LNG export projects. This is something, quite honestly, that folks had agreed was going to be a part of the bill. We have included it in every Senate offer. It was taken out by the House. Then, when the House says,

``Your bill doesn't seem to have enough in it. What happened to LNG?'' we say ``You took it out.'' Let's not be moving the goalpost.

What we have is vitally significant for many in our Western States. It includes forest management reform with the potential for a fire budget fix, for our sportsmen and women who care about accessing our public lands for hunting and fishing and recreational shooting. It includes a water package to help boost our water storage and management in some of our most drought-stricken Western States. It has a robust public lands title with more than 50 bills in it that provide everything from the expansion of a VA cemetery in South Dakota to high- priority land exchanges in places like Colorado. We have language related to the National Park Service Centennial that really sets our national parks on track for a second century. It includes a range of nuclear, cyber security, and hydroelectric innovation policies. These are good things that will help our country move forward and produce more energy that is affordable, reliable, and free of any form of pollution. We have worked so hard.

To be here on the 8th of December and say we are out of time--well, tell that to the sportsmen who have been working for 6 years to get a legislative package. And here we are on December 8 saying we are done.
Tell that to those--particularly from the West--who are concerned about wildfire threats year after year and whether the funds are going to be there not only to address fire but to be there for the other accounts that our agencies are worried about. Tell them that we ran out of time on December 8.

Mr. President, I have to say that we have not run out of time; we have, unfortunately, run out of a desire to work together to finish important work for this country. We have plenty of time and should not be making excuses. Now is not the time to run down the clock. We must recognize that we have worked for 2 long years and this work deserves to be placed into law. I urge my friends and my colleagues in the other Chamber to work with
us on this. Let's not give up on energy policy. With that, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague for the indulgence
of some additional time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source