[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S176-S178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 550
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the world is undeniably round; water
undeniably freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit; and equally undeniably,
the climate is changing, and the changes in the climate are human-
caused by fossil fuel emissions. Fossil fuel emissions are the primary
cause.
These are facts, and they are demonstrated by sound science. Not only
is climate change a demonstrated fact recognized by all sound science
on the topic, but human beings have been aware of this scientific fact
for over a century. The fossil fuel industry has worked to suppress
that fact for nearly 60 years, but it is still a fact.
One hundred thirty years ago, in 1896, Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities
contributed to a global ``greenhouse effect'' driving global warming.
That was 1896.
In 1968, at a celebration of the hundred-year anniversary of the
fossil fuel industry, the physicist Edward Teller warned that
greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels cause a greenhouse
effect and that increased use of fossil fuels would cause global
warming and severe sea level rise. His audience, obviously, was fossil
fuel executives at that event commemorating the 100 years of the fossil
fuel industry.
This chart is of the famous Keeling Curve, which shows the dramatic
acceleration in CO2 in the atmosphere beginning around 1950.
You can see it start up in 1850, but it really kicked off after 1950.
This data, actually, from back here comes from scientists who collect
core samples in glaciers, date the core samples, and can test the
bubbles that are preserved in those ice core samples from ancient
glaciers. I have actually been to the lab at Ohio State where a married
couple of scientists had this immense freezer in which they had core
after core after core of samples from glaciers, and very often, the
glacier is now gone.
This chart shows the rise in global average temperatures from 1860 to
now. While it jumps up and down a lot seasonally, the red line shows
the average. As you see the CO2 curve accelerating, you see
the global average temperature also accelerating.
Between 1968 and 2003, fossil fuel interests, including American
Petroleum Institute, Exxon, and Shell, commissioned scientific reports
on climate change to look into this, all of which--all of which--
concluded that climate change was happening, that greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuel combustion were the primary cause of climate
change, and that the impacts of this change in our climate would be
severe.
The fossil fuel industry suppressed their own scientists' findings
for decades, but in 2015, investigative journalists found and leaked
the suppressed internal memos. These companies knew what their business
was doing all along, and they chose to hide the evidence of their own
scientists and do nothing.
Not only did they know, but their own scientists' work was stunningly
accurate.
This is a chart from Exxon pulled from a 1982 Exxon memo. This line
in black is the predicted rise, back when this was prepared, before
1982, in CO2 concentrations. They start at 1960 and work
their way to 2100. This is what Exxon predicted for CO2
concentration increase, and this lower line is what Exxon predicted for
temperature increase driven by the CO2 concentration
increase. The blue line is what actually happened with respect to
CO2 concentration. The red line is what actually happened
with respect to temperature.
Those Exxon scientists pretty well nailed it. I mean, that is very,
very close, to have actual results track the Exxon predictions. But
that didn't get out even though Exxon knew because the fossil fuel
industry suppressed all of this.
Today, NASA maintains that ``there is unequivocal evidence''--
unequivocal evidence--``that Earth is warming at an unprecedented
rate'' and that ``[h]uman activity is the principal cause'' of this
warming. That is what NASA scientists say.
NASA scientists are pretty good. We are driving remotely controlled
vehicles around the surface of Mars that got sent there by NASA,
driving around collecting data and sending images back to Earth from
Mars. When you can pull that off, you are a pretty good scientist.
This is what NASA said: ``unequivocal evidence that Earth is
warming'' and that ``[h]uman activity is the principal cause.''
The United States has its own National Climate Assessments, which
Congress actually mandated by law. They are the most comprehensive
source for data on climate impacts in the United States. Five have been
published since they were required by Congress--2000, 2009, 2014, 2018,
and 2023. A sixth National Climate Assessment was due for 2028, but in
2025, the Trump administration fired all the scientists and researchers
working on that project. They even shut down the website.
Why, you may ask, is the Trump administration suppressing science,
firing scientists and researchers? Why won't the Trump administration
protect the American people from greenhouse gas emissions? Why are they
even trying to repeal the finding that these greenhouse gases are
pollutants? It is pretty simple: fossil fuel industry pressure from
fossil fuel industry front groups.
This is a graph I have used repeatedly on the floor before. It is put
together by a scientist, Robert Brulle, who studies the science denial
operation as a social and economic phenomenon. Each of these dots
represents a group that propagates the fossil fuel industry's climate
denial fraud campaign. As you can see, there are a lot of them. This is
a big cloud of groups
[[Page S177]]
whose job is to fool the American public, propagate climate denial
fraud about what is really going on, and in some cases actually work on
the political side to put dark money into our politics to corrupt
America's response to this known danger. This web of denial, of fraud,
of corruption costs American lives, and it costs Americans money, too.
By the way, voters are paying attention. A December poll found that
65 percent of American voters understand that climate change is
increasing their cost of living. And we know that to be true. As
chairman of the Budget Committee, I had hearing after hearing that
demonstrated that.
What we see across the country is climate change driving extreme
weather, sea level rise, heat waves, catastrophic wildfires, and toxic
pollution. That not only drives illness and death, but it is right now
as we speak undermining the insurance, mortgage, and real estate
markets in places like Florida. Those parts are already in disarray.
And when you can't get insurance on your home because the climate risk
is uninsurable, nobody can get a mortgage on your home either, which
means that when you try to sell that home, unless you are a millionaire
swapping McMansions--if you are a regular person who needs a buyer who
can get a mortgage on your property to sell it, it means your property
becomes hard to sell. It means its value decreases.
And, in fact, in Florida you are seeing an insurance market that is
in complete collapse, propped up by taxpayers to try to hold it
together. You are seeing a mortgage market that is in disarray as
people find they are unable to sell their properties. And Florida led
the country last year in the decline in property values. It was the top
State in property value decline.
This is coming at us, and it is coming at us hard. In other speeches,
I have given surveys of the multiple, multiple warnings--not from green
groups, not from environmentalists, but from people who understand the
financial system and see this threat that is bearing down on us.
So fossil fuel's climate denial fraud is coming at American families'
finances. It is real, and it is costing them.
So I have a resolution, and the punch line is very simple: One,
climate change caused by fossil fuel combustion is not a hoax. I hope
we can go with NASA on that. I hope we can go with Exxon on that. I
hope we can go with real, measured observation of weather on that.
Second, the reality of human-caused, greenhouse-gas-driven climate
change is sound science. That is essentially undisputed in the
scientific community. There is a microscopic stable of people whose
science usually means they show up here to testify for the fossil fuel
industry to sow doubt. But once you get beyond that tiny stable of paid
climate deniers, it is 99.9 percent. I mean, science is--that is as
close to unanimous as science gets on this, and I urge that this body
should reflect that.
And, finally, the third, Congress should protect legislatively
mandated climate research programs. Science is the headlights for
society. Science predicts and tells us what is coming at us. You would
be a fool to turn the headlights out on your car driving onto a dark
road. We are fools if we turn off the science headlights of our
government as we move into increasing climate danger.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration
and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 550; further, that the resolution
be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just
want to say that I am optimistic that the Senator from Rhode Island and
I agree on our goals here: that we both think the environment is
important, that we both want to leave this world cleaner, healthier,
and safer than we found it. I think those are great goals. And having
children and grandchildren that love the great outdoors, I want to
leave this world better than I found it.
But I guess where we disagree is, How are we going to get there? As a
family, we have done projects like we planted over 20,000 trees on our
land. We have done several water projects where we preserved wetlands.
We have eliminated invasive species. We have worked with and invested
in Ducks Unlimited, which does some incredible things for the
environment.
What is interesting, as we think about what are the biggest impacts
on the environment and what the future holds, actually, the No. 1
predictor is the world economy--that if we have a strong world economy,
the carbon footprint is going to be less. So we think about: Well, why
is that? And we should answer the question: Why is that so? If there is
a strong world economy, then the infrastructure can be built for energy
production with a smaller carbon footprint.
I think of building pipelines for natural gas, for instance, as
opposed to all these countries that are still burning coal, that are
burning wood and diesel fuel, heating fuel. I can't even believe that
still, in America, we are burning heating fuel because we won't let
natural gas pipelines go across certain areas. So a strong world
economy is one of the biggest impacts on our environment's future.
And so what impacts the world economy? I think one of the things is
energy. The world needs energy that is not only affordable, but it
needs to be reliable and clean. It has to be all those things. And we
can do that. But if you have energy production that is not affordable,
that is not reliable, then people aren't going to use it, and countries
aren't going to use it.
So we need this bridge. We need this bridge, and I think the solution
long term is probably some form of nuclear energy. I think it is
probably small modular reactors, which have zero carbon footprint. They
are walkaway safe. They are not quite ready for prime time, but we are
getting closer every year. And I think, within 5 to 10 years, we will
have these small modular reactors powering communities and powering
data centers and all those great things.
I think we have to keep in mind that it is so expensive to transport
electricity. If you transport natural gas to make energy, it is a tenth
of the cost that it is to transport electricity. So, again, we have to
think about the equation as well as clean, but we also need to think
about affordable and reliable.
I think the challenge for those of us who are actually scientists is
to go back and think about all the predictions that have never, never
come true from the climate alarmists. In 2013, Peter Wadhams said we
would be ice free by 2015. In 2007, the IPCC said the Himalayan
glaciers would disappear by 2035; it was later retracted. In 2019,
everyone's climate alarmist favorite, AOC, said the world is going to
end in 12 years if we don't address the climate change. We are not
quite to 2031, but we are getting there.
It doesn't do any good to be an alarmist. We need a practical
approach to our environment--a practical, pragmatic, economical
approach--and I look forward to the day when my friends across the
aisle want to sit down with Republicans and have a real conversation
about how we get there.
And, again, I am just committed to leaving this world cleaner,
healthier, and safer. I don't believe that we can go along with my
colleague from Rhode Island's resolution here, and for that reason I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me just remind everyone who is
listening what this resolution resolved--three simple points: One,
climate change is not a hoax. Two, climate science is actually sound
science. And, three, we shouldn't turn off our research headlights that
tell us what is coming at us.
That was all. All we had to agree on was basic facts. So when my
friends on the other side can't agree on facts that are so basic as
climate change is real, the science is sound, and we should keep our
headlights on as we drive into this unprecedented new hazard, it is
hard to see how we move on from there.
I agree very much with my friend from Kansas that energy that is
affordable, reliable, and clean is our common
[[Page S178]]
goal. And I will give an example because the developers of Revolution
Wind have told me that our offshore wind facility is going to send
power ashore at 9 cents per kilowatt hour into a grid whose average
price is 18 cents. It is literally half the price to get power off
Revolution Wind than it is to pay for the primarily natural-gas-fueled
power that drives the New England grid. It is a 50-percent cost
reduction; so it is affordable. Reliable? The wind blows like crazy out
on the ocean; it is highly reliable.
In fact, Iowa, which has the biggest wind component of its electric
grid, has actually treated wind as reliable baseload energy because
where one turbine might not be spinning, there are plenty of others
that are. So the people who plan for making sure that the lights don't
go out--technical people--actually treat wind as reliable baseload
energy through formulas that that ISO has developed.
And clean? Yes, it is clean. It burns no fossil fuel.
And yet the Trump administration twice has tried to shut down that
project--twice. Just yesterday, they got blown up in Federal court for
the second time when they tried for the second time to shut down that
project. After $5 billion had been invested in it, they wanted to shut
it down.
So we have the way to go forward, but the administration doesn't want
to go forward. They want to sabotage a wind project that will bring
power onto the grid at about half the current grid cost.
Our attorney general in those proceedings proposed an affidavit and,
in his pleadings, said that Revolution Wind would save hundreds of
millions of dollars for New England customers.
The Trump Cabinet is running around pretending that that is not true.
They pretend that it is expensive. They lie.
They had a chance to come into court, where it is a little harder to
lie, and say: Oh, no, you are wrong. Your affidavit asserting hundreds
of millions of dollars in savings when this comes online is wrong, and
here is our case for why 9 cents is bigger than 18 cents or 9 cents
isn't real--or whatever it is that they wanted to say.
They didn't. They didn't pipe up at all because they couldn't,
because it is not true, and every grid operator proves that by calling
up clean energy first because it is less expensive.
Again, these are technical people. They don't have a point to make.
Their system calls the least expensive energy up first, and once you
get through nukes and hydro, you are into solar, wind, and battery. And
it is only once you are through all of that that you then get into the
fossil fuel plants, because they are more expensive, and every grid
operator can prove that to you in the way they actually operate our
electric grids. They call up clean energy first because it is less
expensive, period.
So it is unfortunate that here we are with this web of denial
controlling so much of what happens in this building--fossil fuel
industry dark money slashing through this building--and we can't get
agreement that climate change is not a hoax, that climate science is
sound science, and that we shouldn't turn off our research headlights
as we go into the future.
Before I yield, let me just point out that the University of Kansas
teaches climate science. The University of Kansas teaches climate
science. It even teaches about this stuff. It has a course called
``Anti-Environmentalism and Climate Change Denial in America,'' in
addition to a ``Climate and Climate Change'' course, a ``Climate Change
and Hazards Planning'' course, and a ``Climate Science'' course.
When your home State university is teaching the science of climate
change, you ought to be able to agree that climate science is real and
that climate change is not a hoax.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
____________________