Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 557 (Executive Calendar)

Senator Whitehouse asked unanimous consent for the Senate to immediately take up and approve S. Res. 557, a resolution related to climate change, without further committee action or debate. Senator Moreno objected, arguing that Democratic climate policies raise costs for working Americans, subsidize electric vehicles for the wealthy, and benefit China, which he called the world’s biggest polluter, while American drivers and businesses take the blame and pollution from Canada’s wildfires goes unaddressed. Whitehouse said he also had objections to parts of the Inflation Reduction Act but that fossil fuel emissions cause real harm and the Senate should act on climate change. The request was not agreed to.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Sheldon Whitehouse, RI

Democrat
“I am asking the Senate to immediately approve this resolution without any more debate or committee work.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 557; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). Is there objection? The Senator from Ohio.

Bernie Moreno, OH

Republican
“I object to this resolution. Democratic climate policies hurt working Americans, give tax money to rich people for electric cars, and help China, which is the world's biggest polluter. These policies blame American drivers and businesses while ignoring pollution from China and Canadian wildfires.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say a few things. One, resolutions like this sound very much mild. It actually is just a bunch of words that basically just say: What is wrong with that? What is wrong with saying something like that? So let me explain where these kinds of ideas go. When the Democrats had control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they had the opportunity to help working Americans--the people who work every day to build this country, the middle class that all of us should be advocating for, the very people that--the New England Democrats that I once knew--J.F.K., et cetera--would have made their entire party platform about helping working Americans. Instead, what did they do? They betrayed working Americans with a wide, open border that lowered and suppressed wages. They passed electric vehicle subsidies. Let me walk you through exactly what the Democrats did, taking this kind of resolution to the maximum. They passed a subsidy that gave multimillionaires the ability to get $7,500 of taxpayer money to lease a luxury imported vehicle. And 250,000 of the wealthiest Americans got $7,500 each to lease a luxury electric vehicle because for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that somehow would solve the issue of climate change. Not one single Democrat has ever answered the question: Why on Earth would you have possibly put forward horrific public policy like that? No. 2, if you notice, in the Senator from Rhode Island’s presentation, there wasn’t a single time he mentioned the largest polluter on Earth, which happens to be the People’s Republic of China. We have been enabling the Chinese economy for decades. It was this body that normalized relations with China in 2000, that allowed them to come into the World Trade Organization and systematically pollute the planet. They are building coal facilities every week, while the Democrats, when they had control of government, were shutting them down. You could describe what was just discussed as an absolute China-first policy--America last, China first. One-third of all global pollution comes from China, and yet my colleague comes up here to talk about climate change and doesn’t say a single word about that country. In fact, he continues to espouse policies that enable the Chinese. For example, in the aforementioned electric vehicle subsidies, most of those batteries that were in those electric vehicles came from Chinese battery manufacturers--made with slave wages, slave labor; using power derived from the very carbon emissions that you denounce. You live in a State that derives its electricity from the worst possible carbon footprint. You have electricity that comes over from Canada--propane, delivered on diesel trucks--because you refuse to build a pipeline from my State, where we can give you clean, natural gas that would reduce carbon emissions. The hypocrisy goes on and on. Then let’s talk about recent events. My colleague, I have heard him, because I sit where you sit periodically, say the same thing many, many times in my 18 months that I have been here. He talks about electric vehicles: We have got to get off of internal combustion engines--a big policy of the Democrat Party. Let me give you a little statistic on automobiles. If you took every single car--automobile--off of the roads of America, nobody could drive a car for 12 months. That is nuts. I would suggest that is bad public policy. But follow me on that one: no automobiles on American roads for 12 months. The amount of carbon emissions that has polluted mostly the Midwest, over the last 2 weeks, because of mismanagement of Canada’s forests, is equivalent to an entire year of carbon emissions from automobiles. Yet my colleague has not once called into question the fact that the Canadians do not allow our firefighters to go into their country to help, that they have mismanaged the way they coordinate these fire responses. They don’t have a central entity to control it. No comment on the fact that millions of people in my State have been absolutely poisoned with carbon pollution coming from Canada. But what does he want? He wants our industries to be collapsed, our industries to be held to a different standard--not one word from China--and espousing policies like this electric vehicle subsidy for the richest Americans, while, at the same time, there are people flying around in private jets to global conferences to talk about climate change. Spare me the hypocrisy. And for all of those reasons and many, many more, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The objection is heard. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Sheldon Whitehouse, RI

Democrat
“Fossil fuel emissions cause real danger, and we must do something about it. The Senate should stop ignoring these facts and take action on climate change.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am not going to go through a rebuttal of the factual misstatements to which we have just been treated, but I will add that I have objections to the IRA bill as well. We can all have objections to parts of the IRA. But the fact is that fossil fuel emissions continue to cause harm; they continue to cause danger. And the warnings that I have described are now very real. We can do nothing about it, and that has been the plan in the Senate ever since Citizens United dialed up the fossil fuel industry to influence us with dark money. But if we are going to do something about it, we must start somewhere, and I would recommend that we start with some really simple facts, like the ones that I brought to the Senate floor just now. These are serious warnings. Senators who wish to change the subject or distract us or prevent us from responding in any way to these serious warnings--well, that is everybody’s choice. But I do think these warnings are serious enough that they merit attention. So if you don’t like my suggestion, let’s do something different. But let’s just not sit here and do nothing.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 119

  1. House of Representatives High Cost of War 3 statements
  2. House of Representatives The Wonderful Mccourt Family 2 statements
  3. House of Representatives Recognizing University at Buffalo President Satish Tripathi 2 statements
  4. House of Representatives Recognizing Robert Bentley 3 statements
  5. House of Representatives Recognizing Pamela Irvine 3 statements
  6. House of Representatives Remembering Wes Anderson 3 statements
  7. House of Representatives Legacy of American Liberty 3 statements
  8. House of Representatives Honoring James Robert Yaroszeufski 4 statements
  9. House of Representatives Recognizing Colorado Army National Guard Aviators 5 statements
  10. House of Representatives No Data Centers 2 statements
  11. House of Representatives Recognizing Final Flight of A-10 at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 2 statements
  12. House of Representatives Recognizing Vance Taylor on His Retirement 5 statements
  13. House of Representatives Providing for Consideration of H.R. 8800, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 8884, Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act... 15 statements
  14. House of Representatives Main Street Capital Access Act 24 statements
  15. House of Representatives Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027 7 statements
  16. House of Representatives National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 23 statements
  17. House of Representatives National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 29 statements
  18. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 807 (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  19. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 808 (Executive Calendar) 4 statements
  20. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 557 (Executive Calendar) 3 statements
  21. Senate Artificial Intelligence (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  22. Senate Authority for Committees to Meet 2 statements
  23. Senate Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act 2 statements