i will inform this committee and the public watching -- oh i'm sorry. i apologize i didn't mean to skip over you. i now recognize mr. unger for five minutes. >> madam chair ranking member stansbury distinguished members subcommittee i'm honored to share with you. my views are my own and not by former employers. i served for the state department and a nongovernmental positions focused on foreign aid reforming global stomach. if he is since world war ii has wanted to shape foreign aid in line with its goals. strangling the system to extinction is akin to unilateral disarming at a time of mounting geopolitical competition for partnership globally.

throwing away her toolbox does not make us safer or well positioned to influence the world. our set of foreign aid tools reflect enlightened self-interest. to counter communism and enhance the education of farming productivity and people around the world while saving lives. our international aid solaria program have collectively saved more than 35 million lives over the past couple of decades. u. he was assistant has built partnerships and economic growth so much so 11 of america's biggest trading partners were former recipients of the u.s. foreign aid. we are none. machover geostrategic competition. china has been vying with the u.s. for partnership across the global south making deals where cam. china can and will fill soft power boys left behind. a threat to our security is connected to developing countries. from a potential resurgence of isis in the middle east to the

spreading influence of islamist militants and russian mercenaries across the sahel. on the eastern edge of europe russian aggression may continue to grow unchecked in columbia the strife of neighboring venezuela spilling over to the worst violence violence in the generation through that backdrop administration has abruptly and collectively disabled u.s. tools of foreign assistance for the white house -- but their approach is dismantling many programs that help americans thereby cutting off our nose to spite our face. this is evidenced in many ways. first the government has purchased more than $2 billion in food aid annually from american farmers and american farm supply more than 40% of food aid to usaid around the world. with the foreign aid freeze and stop work order rice wheat and soybeans will in transit and import and in houston alone hundreds of tons of american growing fleet have been stranded. the recklessness of the current

approach is evidenced in members too. we need our foreign aid to prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases from spreading before reaching our shores. u.s. funded early detection entry but for deadly diseases like have come to a standstill and very few waivers have been issued from lifesaving assistance reports from implementors and kasich euphony programs have resumed due to payment systems not function in usaid staff layoffs. it's also counterproductive to eviscerate programs focused on other transnational concerns from conflict in the trafficking of people and drugs. this unserious review process is additionally causing her government to be tied up in court cases that may drag on for years and prove costly connection to broken contracts and violations of law. these losses are unnecessary and perhaps especially if you believe like i do in the need

for reform. script important to be able to differentiate between gruesomely appropriated projects that may reflect policy priorities. is rotting in ports. it's the purchase medicines that can be distributed because of the cutting of programs and firing of people that in turn. this from being able to meet its own foreign-policy goals. going forward governments will need an oversight approach to programming that includes the following. the congressional modification and review process the committee's compositor hall projects two implemented partners should undergo audits and submit detailed -- detailed plans and expenditure reports. and conflict there should be a vetting of key staff against databases before you spell or suspend an inspector general should be empowered to conduct investigations and other activities to help identify prevent and punish any misuse of taxpayer funding. the issue before you today is

these elements are precisely the safeguards that have been placed at usaid but the staffing to carry it out has been stopped or by destroying the system of oversight be the is the more damage to effective programming than any specific project that foreign aid may choose to highlight. we should all care about foreign aid to be secure enough to make it better not to kill it. congress has a role to play. thank you. and thank you witnesses for your testimony. mr. unger iafallo to. we can also confirm the world programs the recent post concerning in kind to do vfp has been rescinded. this allows for resumption of food purchases and deliveries. >> madam chair? are we going member to member or are you speaking between each witness? if you are going to offer evidence.

you are not recognized. it's my time. i now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. this committee based on the steering and witness testimony will consider recommending investigations and criminal referrals. when joe biden was president his son hunter was on the board of the craning energy company called burisma for the prosecutor general of ukraine at the time was investigating burisma for corruption. biden threatened and it's on video to withhold $1 million at usaid grants to ukraine if he wasn't fire. his usaid supposed to be used as leverage by a president to protect his fund's? his son? can we call that corruption. >> in your estimation roughly what percentage of usaid funding is sold out to bad actors for efforts that don't have the best

interest of americans in mind? >> what troubles me the most is learning in the last year with a the hard work of the house foreign affairs committee in joni ernst usaid has been paying out over 50% to overhead charges. the office of inspector general of u.s. aib criticized the agency for not knowing the overhead charges handed out to all of these actors from $142 billion of disbursements but that's extremely troubling. >> samantha powers biden's usaid administrator openly spoke about her agency's efforts to promote democracy around the world. in your estimation mr. primorak is that what she was doing and is not with usaid, what was usaid doing during the biden administration?

>> let me cite the father pope francis who accuse usaid and owners of providing ideological colonization pushing a radical ideology onto developing world that was anti-family and anti-life. >> it's been said that usaid tens of millions of american taxpayer dollars to promote propaganda in brazil in the lead-up to the bolsonaro lula election in 2022. it's been claimed that this funding was used to pass laws and silent balsam ro's on line presence and barred him from running for office in the future. mr. primorak can you offer insight into these allegations or comment on whether the u.n. should play a role in toppling democratic processes around the world but we saw was usaid weaponized by the biden administration to attack any party that was conservative.

it happened in pro america poland and hungary. simply the most extensive examples of regime change operations fueled by usaid is that of their role in the syrian civil war aimed at toppling bashar al-assad. reports from ddg of politics and other sources estimate usaid funneled over 15 million ansari over decades covertly funding opposition groups mercenaries and anti-government networks under the cover of humanitarian aid. this included support for militant backed propaganda efforts often in collaboration with the national endowment for democracy. the operation culminated in assad's overthrow in 2024 by western backed groups. with usaid's financial trail documented in congressional budget reports and criticized by syrian officials as interference mr. rome into these kinds of activities carried out by an

american agency make americans safer at home or do they risk embroiling us in more deadly and costly foreign conflict? when the agency is doing it according to the way in which represents american national security interest it's correct that when it's abused for political purposes ideological umbrage and them it is the worst exhaustion of american taxpayer money especially when it leads to the loss -- a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 14, senate joint resolution 12. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 14, s.j. res.providing for congressional disapproval

chapter of the united states code of the rules submitted by the environmental protection agency and so forth. mr. hoeven: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

in fact some of the things that i agreed about are the u.s. foreign aid is a powerful tool that should align with national security interests and we that we should not be empowering foreign adversaries and i too am also deeply concerned about autocratic regimes like our adversaries in china who are aggressively investing inn. soft power at the expense of the united states.

i also agree strongly with all the witnesses that we need reforms to our foreign aid we need more oversight betting auditing and inspections of what is going on. however and i recognize mr. primorak didn't touch on much of the testimony here today, i was surprised that in project 2025 and some of your other statements one of the primary areas that you really have disagreed with the foreign aid that has happened under other demonstrations is in the area specifically of climate change, lgbtq rights issues and diversity in dei. is that correct? >> yes. >> although you did not testify as much they hear about these issues i want to just make sure you do believe in climate change, correct? >> climate change, sure. it changes all the time. i'm a big believer in history.

>> absolutely and you understand right now our allies in the pacific on the frontlines and pushing back against chinese authoritarianism are requesting climate assistance from the united states because they are facing some of the most extreme impasses. >> according to u.s. aib. sages say yes or no sir. >> 99% drop. sir the question is do you understand ours specific allies who we have defense agreement in contact with our asking united states for climate assistance as for the exchange to provide a place for united states bird sample to push back against chinese authoritarianism. you understand that correct? >> yes. >> best way we are involved in providing financial assistance and foreign aid around climate change in addition to the fact that it's a global threat.

i understand that you also and i'm not even going to use the language here because i very much disagree with it but i just want to ask, if you agreed that lgbtq people exist and have human right, right? >> absolutely. >> okay and you also agree that our government and our institutions should look like the people they represent? is part of being able to engage with foreign governments, correct? >> if you want to counter china. >> sir i'm asking less very straightforward question. i see you aren't interested in engaging in the conversation. while we can agree to disagree i will take this as the difference in values and maybe worldviews but i just want to point out here that specifically this alliance is at the trump administration is doing in

trying to gut programs correct diversity equity and in helping our allies overseas. this is not, fraud and abuse. this is a different worldview. you you can't just call something fraud and abuse because you disagree with it. it's nice to see you here again mr. o'neil. i'm out of time and i will circle back. i recognize that amount from texas for five minutes. >> thank you chair when i appreciate. the hearing and the witnesses for being here. it's been astonishing to watch we party new viewers at tremendous amount of waste fraud and abuse in our government to watch the extent and egregiousness of it has been revealed. i have set a number of times how

aggravating it is that this government is forcing the american people to the demise of their own own country could be seen is a number of times especially in california and much of this funding is mr. o'neal has pointed out uncovering the world's largest money-laundering team in history. so i would like to thank that if these things were put to a vote that our friends on the left wouldn't vote for a pickle maker or to send people to -- i would like to thank that would be a no vote on the other side of the aisle but but this is stuff that taxpayer dollars should be funded at you got to wonder about the big trail when things aren't covered to pick these things to the border trafficking institution that was set up the

industry the censorship apparatus those are examples where we saw to taxpayer dollar funds were going to ngos that were leftist organizations turning out voters and good setting up a campaign front at taxpayers expense. you had to wonder how this is happening. there's no line item in the legislation that has the things in it so i'd like to ask you where decisions being made and who's making the decisions about where these dollars go? >> this is a combination of cooperation between the congress and the white house but i can tell you during my tenure at usaid everything we did had strong bipartisan support. unfortunately when president biden came in. >> if someone is an agency somewhere making decisions out of that decision made in his making that decision? who is pushing the button here? >> it starts with the administered or goes to the level in the office contract

office and the office of acquisition procurement. >> contract officers. our people elected? we hear a lot about elected officials is that there's no one at usaid that is. the people that are spending money are not officials. why the issues we have had is trying to track dollars when it goes out to bringing accountability to it and there is no connection that we've been able to find an employee i.d. number for example with where the grant money is going and the contract money did we are working on legislation for that but one of the things that's disturbing is the fact that some of the money that's going out doesn't even have a name or where it's going out and you talked about that mr. roman. billions of dollars.sl >> the issue is while the

individual grantees had to apply for a vetting process usaid conducts under review incurring -- including sub grantees. you are left with the space on the wall rather than a renovator room itself. >> some these dollars are going toal organizations. what would happen if we found a business funneling money to the? >> they would be indicted and charged to go before a trial and go to jail for a 20 year sentence forno money-launderingr material support for terrorism. >> it's so illegal the government is doing it case? been in the chairman's remarks he was saying it's as if though a private system can do door to bureaucrat wants to give money to a organization it's okay. i find that.

i want to go back to one thing because i talk to ambassadors across the world and we'd like to align ourselves with united states but we don't want to align ourselves with china. they are talking roads bridges infrastructure in those kinds of things. is traditionally known as soft power. right now when they are talking to the united states what they have gotten from the state department of social reengineering. many of them our nation is founded on judeo-christian values and pastors across the country are working to put millions into missionaries they understand the fact that her state department is sending billions in. >> you can quickly answer. >> i've spoken to many officials for example and they got social reengineering. >> and network advice tillemann

from massachusetts mr. for five minutes. and thank you madam chair. first of all i want to thank the witnesses are helping the committee with its work. i've been here for a while and i was here when president george w. bush was confronted with wars in iraq and afghanistan and in the midst of that members of this committee, i was in the lead because i was chair of the national security subcommittee, we went to iraq and afghanistan and we have vetted some of the billions of dollars that the president over there. some of it was wide -- wisely of the best interest of protecting our sons and daughters in uniform and others ill an add-on to the hands of our enemies. i think that has been true of every administered show and that has tried to strengthen america's national security by

investments abroad. i do want to say what troubles me greatly is now we have a cessation of all foreign aid and just take ukraine for example. i know it's been $174 billion in aid from the west to ukraine and it's important to note that $174 billion, most of it was here in the united states. paying defense workers and defense contractors and putting americans to work. 90% of that on the defense side and that when you look at the grain shipments that we have made because our akoto systems are inoperable right now, those were american farmers and madam chair i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this article from the "associated press" entitled the usaid

shutdown ending the livelihoods of farmers and other americans. >> without objection. >> thank you madam chair. and what troubles me is now we have a president saying ukraine started the war. mr. roman you are really smart guy and you are up on the stuff. you pay attention. do you seriously believe zelensky and invaded russia. >> okay, i expected that. look members on this committee summer and there but we all sat and classified briefings for months where intelligence personnel to brief us and say okay this week vladimir putin is moving his armored division out of our stock in eastern russia

4000 miles and positioning them in for naveah crain border anticipating an invasion and then you know after the invasion back in 2020 i think it was putin took credit that i ordered the special operations. and yet we have a president saying the opposite. he saying that ukraine invaded russia and the start of the war. to re-state mr. primorak's statement was there one republican in the room to raise their hand and said no mr. president, no mr. president that is a lie. that is false. i didn't hear anything, not one of my colleagues corrected the president and stood up to him and said no mr. president, no mr. president. it was russia and it was russia that started that war appeared

they invaded ukraine and it's right for the west to stand with ukraine. and their people. i didn't hear any of that. that's what troubles me. i had instances where he had briefed with george w. bush on something and i had plenty that i disagreed with but that's the role of congress here but that's our job to call out truth to power. so this idea that all foreign aid should be suspended is an attack on common sense and it's an attack on national security for this country and we should be more careful. i agree with that of the areas where were your >> foreign aid in the area and

away that's good for national security and let's get rid of the stuff and some of the u. of already pointed out, that is not in our interest. that's a process that led to engage in. thank you madam chair nightie of that back. sent to recognize that someone from south carolina mr. timmons for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. i colleagues at the fa are quick to judge the actions of the present early days of this administration but i didn't hear any loud voices from across the aisle when president biden who is clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline ran this country and i don't know who is making decisions and i know how he was being formed into assigning the executive orders he was engaging in. it's very rich i'm hearing these concerns about president trump's

efforts to negotiate peace in ukraine in a manner which is going about it and i think to set the record straight because president trump and his team went to munich to the security conference two weeks ago and they were engaged in diplomacy. they were trying to create an opportunity for the united states to have an economic interest in the future of ukraine and that was through a minerals deal. the u.s. has a strategic interest in having a long-term supply chain for rare earth metals and president trump let's do that. it may not be the membership that they want but it's a close second. your concern is related to those conversations because he

originally said yes let's do it. that sounds a good deal and within 24 hours he did a 180 and he was president trump and the frustration. yeah president trump said some things and tried to create pressure to bring zelensky back to the table. so i get it my colleagues want to throw stones at everything of president trump does. president trump was engaging with canada and mexico and the democrats didn't have time to throw stones at his attempt to secure their side of the border but it only took them for five hours to come to the table. the articles had even gone to print yet so president trump is going to negotiate peace in ukraine and bring all of our hostages from gaza. now the issue at hand usaid.

77 million people voted for president trump. we are out of balance. the of frustration whoever is running the show engaged in policies that the american people disagreed with whether it's with the dei or trans policies whatever it is we are turning the page. we are going to advocate our leadership in the local community. we are going to hit reset because we are so out of bounds that all the can do is go to zero. because they are going to spend $2 million on six changes in guatemala or >> $2000 -- policies that the american people have overwhelmingly -- mr. rome to the issue how do we make sure when we get our foreign aid back running that we don't give money to terrorism? that's a good question.

.. has stonewalled maine for the last year end a half. this goes all the back to 2015. bureaucrats think they know better. >> guess what were going to create transparency across all government. that is what president trump is doing through elon musk elon musk has been asked by the president to serve and he is going to bring transparency. not just usaid but every nook and cranny of the government because that is what the american people want. 2025 with the ability to do that continue, what else can we do? not sure stronger accountability mechanisms because our provisions, stiff penalties for

misuse, criminal investigations of ego towards financing. state department of secretary rubio's review must have a roadmap for better oversight. lastly the legislature must give teeth to its finding bills we have 12 robust penalties, transparency mandates real-time oversight tools rather than waiting three years to get reports from contractors when the party committed the violation past professional limitation. >> we all know sunlight is the best disinfectant. that's a path forward that meta- material back. >> think a print member of the public audience made an obscene gesture. it was caught on camera to a member of congress. i would like to remind everyone in the hearing room to follow the rules of decorum. capitol police will now remove the offender i expect members of the audience to maintain decorum. we will take a pause for a brief moment.

point of order or point of clarification, and share. okay, nevermind. do you have a problem entering inquiry? >> no. >> did not recognize the gentleman from california mr. garcia for five minutes. >> okay, well, thank you to our ranking member, our chair is today. thank you all for joining us. so, this is obviously our second hearing on doge and certainly is elon musk and donald trump, or

work together to destroy our federal agencies. now, a lot has happened in just the last few weeks, since doge's office raiding the federal agencies that we care so much about we know staff have been fired, making our airspace less safe. veterans affairs staff have been fired risking services for vets. food safety and health staff have been hired as we face the bird flu pandemic. all of our agencies are thrown into chaos by elon musk e-mails demanding of course federal workers respond to what they're doing in the last week. what you now have had to of course retract. now we are here today to discuss elon's attack on foreign aid which has been severe. i want to bring again, this is a pic of copresident elon musk who is leading doge. i brought this of course to our last hearing. i note some folks were upset by

it. but just to be clear, we note elon musk is dangerous. he is incompetent. he is chaotic. and he is killing programs that we rely on. we know he's helping to push through massive cuts to medicaid that could rip healthcare away from millions. his pushing tax cuts that will benefit him and his billionaire friends. he's causing a real harm to federal workers. now, some of mr. musk's most damaging actions have actually been toward usaid which we are discussing today. over 14000 adults in 1500 infants have now been estimated to possibly he died because of the trump administration attack on aids treatment programs that are ongoing as we know. they are hurting real people ann damaging our national security. now, if you look at this chart and all spending and the government and you want to look at foreign aid of course which usaid is a part of, it is less

than 1% of the total budget. usaid spends around $40 billion per year. around $40 billion per year and the entire federal budget. meanwhile other parts of the budget including for example the defense department, spent almost 16% of all federal spending a fiscal year 2025. in fact, it's about half of other discretionary sending spending in this chart. the department of defense is the only agency to never pass the audit. usaid past audits all the time. and yet, we are attack and the one agency that is able to pass an audit will leave untouched the agency of course that cannot even pass an audit. last year the department of defense failed to account for 63% of its assets. trillions of dollars worth of equipment have not been properly documented is not just their failure to pass an audit i want to quickly ask about key

programs that are over budget and behind schedule. this of course we don't hear iss f35 fighter jet will cost to each ruling over the course of its lifecycle. these planes are often delivered place. they also cannot fly. right now we know the f35 is $183 billion over budget. which is more 183 billion over 35. entire usaid budget? what's the form you mentioned, sir. >> this is the combat ship the navy, by the way inc. this is basically useless in actual combat. could a lifetime cost of over $100 billion according to pro- public. that is also way more than the entire usaid budget, is that right? >> yes we more. >> thank you. i wanted to ask about the ballistic missile program which cost over 81% during this program cycle.

it costs $141 billion with cost overruns and soaring program costs. you know i'm going to ask you, is what her $41 billion more than the entire usaid budget? >> absolutely. >> elon musk and his companies have received almost $40 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits. that amount the roughly $40 billion is basically enough to rent usaid for an entire year is that correct? >> that is correct for usaid budget and the programs that it manages. >> the majority is not tracked taxedelon musk programs are askg here to testify. they are tacking usaid. and are supporting a billionaire thembillionaire who gets richer every single day. we've got to push back every single time and with that i yield back. >> and i recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> thank you chair lady.

mr. roman are you aware we are sending $40 million a week to the child been? x yes sir. >> can you name other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations? >> we have assisted al-shibaab in somalia. there issues didn't sit on, the former g hawn, hezbollah, others, and syria, dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from u.s. foreign aid. quest could you elaborate a little bit on the mechanisms in place to stop foreign aid from going to terrorist groups and why are they not working if we have them in place and i would note we notice these are various weaponry's, sk s clip carriers probably made in china these are small landmines right beside

right here. >> will sues gaza's case study $2.1 billion the american taxpayer money to gaza since october 7 when hamas invaded southern israel. usaid money was going in terms of emergency use authorization to try to go to parties usaid formally had a relationship with in the gaza strip. they had to have been vetted and should been invented against the special from state department and other treasury organizations. waivers were granted because they say there was an emergency use to have that money comes into gaza. thereby jettisoning the usual typical screening procedures. as a result 90% of aid going from the united states, by way of its agents in gaza ended up in hamas -controlled areas. this is ridiculous. on the assistance of gossage's underwrite the ability for hamas to survive until the cease-fire was passed a few weeks ago. there is no strategic thought for a note screaming but my bent

arm terrorist that's accurate even more than that samantha power's administrator for usaid was intent on having israel not be able to defend itself. too not debate be able to defend itself? >> correct. >> i've got burchett nobody gets mine right so don't worry about what is the turmeric? alright thanks, brother brett terrorist explored our foreign aid loopholes? >> could you pull your mic up i'm sorry. >> could hear me? >> yes sir grave international ngos agencies actively lobby in washington d.c. against a vettingpolicy that would preven. i was a senior vetting officer usaid because you say united nations was doing this? >> sure everybody's getting money, lobbies here. >> are lobbying against us? >> or someone who used to work for one of the lobbies the

largest ngo lobby interaction but where barco witnesses work from 2018 until 20 to either usaid effectively self funds its own external lobby that goes back to congress and asks for more money for usaid. >> the taxpayer taxed the lobbies that work against american interest in possibly killing our allies and possibly americans? >> they bring together groups in washington that oversees work with groups that kill americans. >> i do not need a flow chart to show that. i appreciate it. you think usaid programs are lined with a national security interest of the u.s.? >> no, they have not. they've actually helped china. >> mr. roman? >> no. >> how to these programs compromise our national security? >> a push china, which much of the world towards china on the green energy agenda. the clerk will report the joint

resolution. the clerk: 14, s.j. res. 12, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: under the provisions of 5, usc. 802, there will now be 10 hours of debate equally divided. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that a correction to ann appointmenten l. be printed in the recordment for the information of the senate, this correction is clerical and does not change membership of the british-american interparliamentary group committee. the presiding officer: without objection. heave hov mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 99 submitted is earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 99, celebrating black history month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed e. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to or, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, february 27. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day,

morning business be closed and a the senate resume calendar number 14, senate joint resolution 12, the hoeven methane fee cra. further, that at 12:00 noon, all time be expired and if the senate receives h.j. res. 35, the senate vote on passage of the house joint resolution, as provided under the cra. finally, upon disposition of the joint resolution, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration executive calendar number 24, linda mcmahon, and that the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the mcmahon nomination at 1:45 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoeven: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, today is a sad, discouraging, even disgraceful day here in the senate. the vote that we have just taken

signals the utter and complete subservience of the trump administration and the republican party to the polluters of the fossil fuel industry. to the extent that there's any justification for fossil fuel poll pollution, leaks from pipes and valves and wells that aren't properly maintained by fossil fuel companies are probably the most shameless form of pol pollution, and yet that is precisely what this vote that we have just taken protects, and even encourages. let's start for a moment with

why methane matters. we are well into a climate cr crisis. we have been warned about it for dec decades. the scientists, god bless them, actually got it right, even exxon's scientists got it right. and on the basis of all that science, it then fell to us here in this building, in congress, to react prudently and sensibly and steer our course away from the worst dangers that the scientists had so well and accurately predicted. and of course, we did not. we did not for the worst of all

possible reasons, which was improper influence from the fossil fuel industry itself, which was supercharged by the citizens united decision that allowed the industry to flood unlimited amounts of money into politics, and worse, unlimited amounts of money into politics secretly, through front groups and various anonmischaracterizing screens, so that -- anonymizing screens, so citizens were deprived knowing who was in their living room, on the television, telling them lies about climate changes. names with -- front groups with phony names like heartland institute, and americans for pros prosperity, shielded the fact this was a self-interested industry, using political clout

of the worst kind to protect its right to pollute for free. nobody should have the right to pollute for free, but this entitled industry fought to corrupt this body in order to protect it's pollute-for-free business model. amidst all the pollution that this industry emits, carbon dioxide is the gas that is most discussed. we talk about carbon content. we talk about carbon dioxide limits. we talk about carbon emissions. but methane, methane actually is even more dangerous in the short term than carbon dioxide. these gasses go up into the

atmosphere where they have what is called a greenhouse effect. they trap more heat, which warms up the planet. over a 20-year period, methane is more than 80 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. and a lot is going to go wrong in the next 20 years during which this methane will have that 80-times effect compared to carbon dioxide. methane is explosive. it is poisonous. it is a pollutant.

and what this bill tried to do was to get the fossil fuel industry, get these big companies to clean up the methane that they were just leaking into the atmosphere. make it a complete -- making a complete mess, in really giant plumes. we've been able recently to detect these plumes from above, from satellites even. so here's just one satellite image, this is on google earth, of one methane plume. and we are allowing immense amounts of methane into the

atmosphere. the fossil fuel industry for years told the epa that they were releasing eight million tons of methane per year. well, eight millions tons of methane per year, when you consider that's 80 times as bad as carbon dioxide, that gets you to a pretty big number of carbon dioxide equivalent, and a pretty big danger to our national well-being. but it wasn't eight million tons. the industry did not tell the truth to the epa. as it turned out, when the environmental defense fund actually put up a satellite to measure this, and then flew airplanes over the plume to get even more distinct clarity out of the signals, it turns out

that the fossil fuel industry was leaking 32 million tons of methane into the atmosphere. lea leaking. this is pipes that they didn't maintain, valves that they didn't maintain, wells that they didn't properly close, leaking. ordinarily, just to be a good s citizen, just to be a decent individual, if you were making a big mess that affected other people, you'd stop it, you'd clean it up, you might even apologize for the mess that you made. not the fossil fuel industry. but we needed to solve the problem of 32 million tons of methane being leaked by this

industry every year. they sure weren't going to do it on their own. they wouldn't even tell epa the truth about how much they were e emitting. this is natural gas that, if it weren't being leaked out into the atmosphere, would have gone on through those pipes to an end user. they could have actually sold it. this is an industry that was so lazy and so sloppy and so cheap that it wouldn't even maintain its own equipment to prevent it from leaking and spilling out. so, something had to be done. so we worked with the presiding officer's predecessor, who was an ard ant advocate for the --

ardent advocate for the fossil fuel industry, to get a measure into the inflation reduction act that would deal with the problem of 32 million tons of methane negligently leaked by the fossil fuel industry into the atmosphere because they couldn't be bothered to clean up their own mess and maintain properly their own equipment. and what did we come up with? we came up with a pretty fair deal for the industry. the industry was going to get a han handout, a government handout of $1.5 billion to spend going out and cleaning up the pipes and the valves and the wells that they darn well should have been cleaning up on their own

already. it should not take a government handout. it should not take corporate welfare to this industry to have them maintain their facilities safely and properly and responsibly. but to solve the problem, we ag agreed, okay, you've been polluting like crazy for decades and you've been lying about how much you've been polluting, you've been negligent about maintaining your own equipment so that this leakage does not happen, and for that we're going to reward you with 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars for you to do the work you should have been doing anyway. that was not that welcome, as you can imagine, for me, and say

for taxpayers in rhode island, who are on the receiving end of so much of this. and what we got in return for that $1.5 billion government handout of corporate welfare to this industry was a provision that if they kept leaking, when they kept leaking, they would pay a reasonable fee to give them an incentive to knock off the leaking. and when i say a reasonable fee let's start with the proposition they shouldn't have been leaking in the first place. the fee, first of all, was only -- would only apply to major leaks, 300 tons and more,

it would only apply to companies that were below the methane leak standards set by their own industry trade group. so it actually allowed these companies to keep leaking for free. as long as they were being as responsible as their own industry trade group said they should be. so, this fee would be limited to those companies whose corporate behavior was so bad that it didn't even meet the standards of their own industry trade gr group. and they could get out of paying the fee at all by simply using that 1.5 billion, or money of

their own, to go and clean up their equipment, maintain their plant enough that they met the standard of their own friendly industry trade group. that is what was accomplished in the inflation reduction act. $1.5 billion into the pockets of polluters to encourage them to clean up their mess in return for which they'd agree, if they kept at it and were doing worse than their own trade association recommended, then they'd have to pay a fee. to give them an incentive to knock it off. which, by the way, is econ 101.

this is not republican versus democrat, this is econ101. even milton friedman, the legendary economist, acknowledged if you're polluting, whether it's dumping sewage in a river or methane in the air, you needed to pay the cost of that harm. economists have fancy words for it. they call it negative external yits but everybody who claims up your mess understands that.

good morals equals good economics. why is it important to do that? otherwise you're giving a subsidy. imagine the factories side by side on a river. one dumping its waste on the river, the other paying good money to make sure its waste is disposed of instead of dumping it on the river. you put the cost of the externality and now you have fair market competition again. otherwise you have a subsidy to the polluter dumping their waste on the river and that is not good economics, not market economics. very often our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the importance of market economics, letting the market have its way. yeah, until it's the big polluters. until it's the big polluters. and then it's pollute for free. it's subsidize them p by giving

them the uneconomic, immoral and unhealthy right to pollute for free. that's where this deal settled. $1.5 billion to the industry into its pocket and free corporate welfare to do what it should have been doing all along, clean up its mess. and in return, if you're below your own industry standards, you've got to pay a fee. that is what was undone today. that is what this vote was all about. this vote was all about saying, we don't care if you are the worst performers in this industry. we don't care if you're the most irresponsible performers in this industry. we don't care if you are emitting way above your own trade group's industry

standards. because you're the fossil fuel industry, you get special privilege. you don't have to maintain your equipment. let the methane roar. rip it out into the atmosphere. have at it. we don't care. oh, and, by the way, thanks for all the money you put in our pockets along the way into our political funds. that's where we are right now. this was a really, really despicable act by the fossil fuel industry to have this done here today. we've been at this for awhile. we've known about climate change for a long time. we've known what methane and

carbon dioxide and other polluting gases did when they got up into the atmosphere. we're seeing it happen around us. i'll mention particularly what's happening in the oceans, because the oceans are a pretty darned honest witness, a pretty darned honest bellwether of the harms of climate change. if you care about the oceans, if you know anything about them, you'll know that the oceans are warming. you'll notice that fisheries are changing, and fish that used to be available to local fishermen are no longer there. they have had to move as the oceans warmed. you've noticed that coral reefs are dying off, which are the nurseries of the ocean, which is where so many of the fish that we then later take into our the diets are born and nurtured, or

come for food and sustenance. you would know that as the oceans are warming, they rise because heat expands water. and along our shores, you see that rise. here's what's happening in my home state. this is what we're looking at. all this blue area here, all that, all of that is land. all of that is land where people have homes, where people have businesses, where people have inves investments. and with the sea level rising, this is the prediction for what's going to be under water. this is the prediction of what we're going to lose, how the map of my state is going to have to

be redrawn so that the fossil fuel industry can keep polluting for free. there is a real cost to this in real people's lives. this is our historic providence city hall. this is an image of what's going to happen. it's going to to be like venice. you'll be able to come up to the front steps of it in a boat. that is going to be really expensive, really damaging. here is barrington, rhode island. it's kind of a bedroom community. it serves as the residence for a lot of people who work over in providence. it has a lot of beautiful homes in it. but look what happens when the seas rise. it's like holland. if you don't build a dike around it, it's under water.

that is a massive public works project, a massive engineering project, a massive risk, and it's one that's brought on us by is fossil fuel pollution, by the fossil fuel industry's insist thaens it has to pollute for free and by the harm that that causes in the oceans. let me give you a scale on the kind of heat that's going into the oceans because you have to measure it in something called a zettajoule. if you know anything about science or even engineering, you know what a joule is. it's the unit of measurement of heat energy. a zettajoule is that unit of heat energy with 21 zeros behind it. 21 zeros behind it. a million has six zeros behind it. this is 21 zeros behind it. it is a massive, enormous

number. and to put human scale on how massive and enormous that number is, the entire production of energy by the human species on the planet earth every year is only one half of a zettajoule. everything that we run, the cars, the motors, the furnaces, the boilers, all of it from india to china, africa, to the united states, the whole globe around, all of our energy production and consumption adds up to one half of a zettajoule. and for the price of the fossil fuel component of that half zettajoule that we all live on,

we are dumping 14 zettajoules of heat into the ocean every year. it's a 30 to 1 ratio. the emissions from fossil fuel in the atmosphere actually magnify the direct heat from the energy consumption. so if you want to know why the oceans are warming, 14 zettajoules of heat, nearly 30 times the entire energy production use of the planet earth is going into the oceans. and that does not bode well for us. with all this evidence out there that the scientists saw, the fossil fuel barons started

getting a little nervous. they like a pollute-for-free business model. in fact, they probably realized that they couldn't compete with clean energy unless they had a pollute-for-free business model. so they knew they needed to get to work to protect their pollute-for-free business model. so they began to set up a comprehensive covert political operation to protect that pollute-for-free business model. it actually began with the tobacco industry's front groups . when it became clear how bad

tobacco was for smoker's health, how bad it was for people getting secondary l smoke, the tobacco industry went into action, and they set up a whole array of phony tobacco-funded front groups that could pretend they were grassroots movements, that could pretend they were science groups. they ran a complicated operation to fend off congress from doing something about the health costs and consequences of tobacco smoking. and then along came the united states department of justice in a better day when it it was willing to take on hard things. and it brought a lawsuit against

the tobacco industry asserting that that whole array of tobacco industry front groups was a vehicle for propagating fraud. that the message that tobacco was not dangerous was wrong, was false, was flat-out fraudulent, and that the tobacco industry knew it. and the case went to trial here in the united states district court in the district of columbia, and the department of justice won a thumping victory. in a decision that ran a little over 1,000 pages, god bless that trial judge who put so much work into listening to all the evidence and putting together such a powerful and voluminous record of the fraud of the

tobacco industry so that when it was appealed up to the circuit court of appeals, slam dunk win for the department of justice in the appeal. when they tried to get it overturned at the supreme court, the supreme court said oh no, no, no, no, no, no. so the decision stood, and the decision was this -- it was actually fairly simple for the 1,000 pages. the effect was fairly simple, almost biblically simple. it said to the tobacco industry, thou shalt lie no more. and, by the way, you've got to go back and clean up and straighten out the lying that you already did. but the real punch was thou shalt lie no more. so if the tobacco industry couldn't lie anymore about its product, then this whole array

of front groups that the tobacco industry had set up was out of business. what are you going to do if you're a paid liar for an industry to try to protect it from congress? well, guess what? along came the fossil fuel ind industry, looking at a very similar problem, the -- the danger of its product and the danger that congress would do something to mitigate the dangers of that product. and of course the tobacco industry lying apparatus had a lot of experience. it had to look real, had to put up fake science that pretended to be real, had to use madison avenue slogans that pretended to

be true. so the fossil fuel industry picked all that up right away but of course that wasn't enough so they actually expanded on that. academic researchers who have looked at the fossil fuel industry's climate denial operation have tagged as many as 100 different front groups all operating, coordinately, like all a bunch of disinformation keys on the same disinformation piano. when one got badly burned for being too phony, well, you'd retire that one and pop up a new one with a new phony baloney name. for a long time they were featuring heroic characters like george c. marshall and founding

fathers when they were doing their naming. but it was a massive, massive, massive political operation to deny the reality of the harm associated with the industry's pro product. exactly like the tobacco industry although amped up on steroids. but it wasn't enough to just put the fraudulent information out there, pretending, for instance, the climate change was a hoax, even their own scientists knew it wasn't a hoax. but admitting that it was real, revealing what their own scientists had told them would mean congress would come and behave responsibly, put a price perhaps on the pollution, make them obey not only moral

commands, but economic rules and that would have put them at a disadvantage. so instead they chess to lie and to lie and to lie and to lie. they also chose to come here and spend money on politics. immense amounts of money in politics. and, as i said, that all got supercharged by the citizens united decision. the citizens united decision said if you're a big industry, the limits are off. you can spend as much as you want. go for it. and in the way in which the

supreme court administered that decision, they also allowed the unlimited money to be spent secretly from behind masks, through front groups so that the citizens of this country, who are supposed to police our political battles and make informed judgments about our political battles were denied the most basic information about who was where and -- who is wearing whose jerry, whos on -- jersey, who's on whose team? who is telling this. the groups had names like rhode islanders for peace and puppies and prosperity. if you went to look at the phony front group with a ridiculous name like that, you'd find it was located in a post office box or that it shared space with

another organization and didn't have any real employees. or that it was one of a ness of related front groups that all shared common sense and employees and would change their names, like moving the masks place to place to keep up the pretense that this was real. and the money poured in. the money poured in. and it allowed the industry to be able to go to party leaders and say, if you will get your party members to shut up about climate change, to shut up about the danger of our product, to turn off the voices of, for instance, republicans like

senator john chafee of rhode island, who hosted the first hearing into the dangers of climate change, shut them up -- if you will shut them up and if you will line up behind us, we can give you unlimited amounts of money. we can give you all the money you could possibly need to win races. and we can hide that it's us. this money can come through the u.s. chamber of commerce, it can come through something called americans for prosperity, it can come through the hearts institute, it can come through multiple hops, like russian nessing dolls to hide who was the original donor from the fossil fuel industry. all of that apparatus, all of that scheme emerged after citizens united.

our political system is now rotten with fossil fuel money. we have things like super pacs that didn't even used to exist, but they're useful because you can put $100 million into a super pac and send it into a particular race and just blow up the adversary. and because the super pac only has to report the immediate donor, you just launder your money through a corporate entity so the name of the fake group is described as the name of the donor and the real donor, whether it's marathon petroleum or exxon oil or whoever it is is not robbed from the public. so all of that money poured in and sure enough the public trillion in doing something

about -- interest about doing something about climate change evap evaporated. bob ingles, had the temerity to work on climate change, was blasted out of his seat in a primary despite his 100% conservative voting record. the signal was clear, if you're in with us, we'll take care of you. if you're not, you're out. you're out of the party even. so this covert scheme has been operating for a long, long time. with lots of shifting front gr groups. it must cost -- dids hard to --

it's hard to tell because it's dark money. it's hidden. some of it you'd repeat it if you ran it through five different front groups, so it's hard to know what the real number is, but it's in the billions. it's in the billions. and why does it make sense to spend that kind of money to meddle improperly in politics and prevent congress from meeting its responsibilities to the american public? why is it worth spending billions to do that? it's worth spending billions to do that because it saves you hundreds of billions. the international montgomery fund is not a green group, it is an economic group. it pays economists to study

stuff, and the international monetary fund has studied how much harm the fossil fuel industry does to america with this negative externalities subsidies. there are are two subsidies, there's the direct subsidy where congress appropriates money to the fossil fuel industry like the $1.5 billion that we gave them to clean up the mess that they're making or like tax advantages so that they don't have to pay proper taxes like other companies. but the big one, the big one is the pollute for free business model. not justified by economics, not justified by morality, not justified by prudent concern over the safety of the planet.

so how much is that negative externality according to the international monetary fund? at last count $700 billion per year. $700 billion per year. so let's just say you're an industry that gets a government subsidy in the form of a pollute for free business model of $700 billion a year. how much is it worth spending to control congress and fix the politics so that you can protect

that subsidy. well, let's just say for purposes of argument that they spend $7 billion a year on influence, on lobbyists, on campaign contributions, on super pacs, on dark money, on supporting the whole apparatus of lies and fake science -- let's just say that that all adds up to $7 billion a year. that means you're making a 100-1 return on your investment every single year. that makes the political operation of the fossil fuel industry its most profitable division. they don't make 100-1 out of

oil. they don't make 100-1 out of gas. they don't make 100-1 out of coal. but they make 100-1 out of politics if they're spending $7 billion a year in political influence. so why are these big numbers spent? why is it sensible from their point of view to maintain this entire armada of phony front groups? this is the biggest political influence operation in history, and boy is it worth it. what a return on investment you get. they've used a whole variety of groups to do it. they have like popup groups that show up for a minute, they've got ones that are completely

under their control like the american petroleum institute, but that's kind of-offs. -- obvious. they run money through the u.s. chamber of commerce or others who don't report that donors. u.s. chamber of commerce seems like a nice group. we've got chamber of commerce all over rhode island, they do a wonderful job. but the u.s. chamber of commerce has been a vir /* veer lent enemy. why? i don't know. i asked them repeatedly, how much money do you get from fossil fuel, how much have you gotten from fossil fuel since the citizenships united decision -- citizens united?

they won't say. but it allows them to appear politically without having to show their hand. 6 well, now with president trump in office, sloshed into office on a wave of $100 million minimum in fossil fuel money, the industry -- is triumphant. and this vote that we just took is this body's tribute to that industry. we don't care if this is you leaking. we don't care if this is you not maintaining your property. we don't care if this is dangerous. we don't care if you're being irresponsible. we don't care if we already gave you $1.5 billion to clean up

your mess. we don't care about any of that. we don't care that the only people that have to pay this fee are the ones who are polluting above would their own industry recom recommends as a pollution level. we don't care about any of that. you are the fossil fuel industry, and you shall have whatever you want from us, whatever the cost. there's a problem, though. there's a problem which is that fossil fuel influence can mess with laws in congress and does, but fossil fuel influence can't mess with the laws of nature.

fossil fuel influence can't mess, frankly, with the laws of economics. so where are we right now? we've been through that era when the scientists were giving their warnings, the academic scientists from the great universities, the industry science from exxon and even from american petroleum institute, scientists in america, scientists overseas, powerful scientific consensus about what was going to happen. go back and read what exxon scientists warned about what was going to happen. we're living it right now. they were right. they knew. exxon knew, the scientists knew. so that was the era, and the scientists got it right. they did their jobs. and then we did not do our jobs under the pressure of all of

that fossil fuel influence, all those hundreds of millions or billions or whatever was spent to protect the $700 billion annual subsidy on which this industry floats. and so now here we are. we're in a new era in this climate story, and the new era in the climate story is the era of consequences, the things that were warned of that are now coming true because we failed in our responsibilities as a congress. and the first place in which the campaign of fraud and disinformation and political pressure by the fossil fuel

industry is crashing into is the insurance industry. the fossil fuel industry is compromising our future with all of these added emissions, including the methane leaks that were given green light today. the fossil fuel industry is compromising our future by pretending that these climate warnings aren't real, but the insurance industry has to look at a real future. it can't lie about the future to protect its present profits. it has to predict the future accurately in order to price its product. you can't ensure -- insure

against a risk that you can't actuarially predict. so insurance companies get pretty expert at knowing how often there's likely to be a storm, how often there's likely to be a drought, how often there's likely to be wildfire, how often there's likely to be flooding. and they get that way because it is their fiduciary obligation to their owners to get it right, to do their very best to honestly get the predictions right. and what is the insurance industry doing right now? they're looking into this fossil fuel future, and they are saying w whoa. we don't know what to do. we can't insure that. these emissions are making our natural systems, the weather, so

weird and so unpredictable that we're starting to have to change the way we do business. so what are they doing? well, florida is probably the epicenter for all of this. it has coasts all around it. it's in the pathway of hurricanes that come from the atlantic or through the gulf. it's smack in the climate danger zone. and what's happening in florida? well, the big insurers are clearing out. they've looked at this market. they've looked at consumers that they serve for decades in many cases, and they've said, we can't figure this out any

longer. these dangers are too hard to anticipate. we can't price this risk. we're out of here. and so little pop-up insurers have emerged that floridians now have to deal with. and the prices have gone through the roof. homeowners insurance prices in florida are four times the national average. in miami-dade county, the average property insurance bill is $17,000 a year. in our inquiries through the budget committee, we over and over again heard of people whose rates have doubled and even quadr quadrupled and even then insurers are still pulling out. insurers are going bust when storms come.

and florida has had to step in and back up its insurance companies called citizens property insurance because there simply isn't enough interest from the insurance industry to provide enough coverage for floridians without this entity which has grown to be enormous. the liability of citizens property insurance is more than the entire debt of the state of florida. this is a big financial anchor hanging on florida waiting for a disaster to strike. so this is getting real. after the era of science came the era of influence and now

it's the era of cons -- consequences. it's not just me talking about this. here is april's economist magazine. i've got a larger version of it that i can show you. there it is. the next housing disaster.

the economy -- what the economist magazine is predicting in this front-page article is a dramatic shock to the global real estate industry. they are talking about a potential $25 trillion hit to the global real estate industry. how does this relate to the insurance problem? that caused florida to have to set up citizens property insurance, that caused rates to quadruple, that caused all these major insurers to bail, that caused people to have to count

for their home insurance on little pop-up start-ups that keep going bust, going bust, going bust? it's this. when you can't get property insurance on your home, then you can't get a mortgage on your home, which means that if you ever want to sell your home, you can't get a buyer. the only buyers left for you, for your home are people who don't need a mortgage, people who can pay cash. well, if you're a palm beach billionaire, you don't care because some other palm beach billionaire has all the money in the world to buy your multimillion dollar mansion for cash. you're done. it's fine.

it doesn't affect the palm beach millionaire world. but let's say you're a plumber living in a development outside of orlando, and the way you afforded your house was with a mortgage. and now your home, your cast le when it comes time to sell it won't get a mortgage. there's not going to be a billionaire who wants that. so property values crash. that's the cascade, like dominos. boom goes the insurance industry. boom goes the mortgage industry. boom go the property values. and then out into the economy goes the harm.

this isn't just senator whitehouse talking. this is economist magazine, this is the chief economist of the mortgage giant freddie mac. this is the chairman of the federal reserve telling us just rece recently that whole regions of the u.s. in 10 to 15 years won't be able to have mortgages, a whole region without mortgages. what happens to property values in that region? and if he's saying that in 10 to 15 years that's going to happen, what are investors going to start doing as they're planning for that future? markets aren't going to wait until the region suddenly says oh, no more mortgages here.

markets are going to start to take action. property values are going to start to decline because investors will be able to look forward and say well, if we can't get a mortgage on that property in 10 years, that's -- the property is not going to be very valuable right now. and it cascades into -- we even had a hearing in the bument committee about how it -- budget committee about how it cascades into the bond market. there was an article just today confirming the warnings from the budget committee how this cascades into the municipal bond market. because what happens when all the property values go down some the tax revenues of the municipality go down. and if that's happening at a time when climate risk is going up and expenditures to maintain and protect infrastructure are going up, you're in a terrible situation for your bond holders because you have less money to pay your bond holders and more expenses. so the municipal bond markets are starting to take action.

they're starting to look at this as a real problem. this is real stuff. the international organization that gives the international banking world warnings about what's coming just did a report on this very situation. the financial stability board it's called. and its report is titled assessment of climate-related vul nerlts -- vulnerabilities, 16 january 2025. and its warnings are that the banking system is imperiled because, frankly, if you can't write mortgages in whole regions

of the country, particularly if you're a regional bank, then that line of business for you is shot. or, if you're a bank whose ratings, whose safety for all the depositors depends on a loan-to-value ratio -- that is sort of the coin of realm for the solvency of banks -- if your loan portfolio has collateral from the homes on which you wrote mortgages and the value of that collateral has dropped because of this insurance problem, you can move pretty quickly from being a solvent

bank to being an insolvent bank that regulators have to move in and shore up or take over, and the warnings are serious enough that the financial stability board is warning banks all around the world, get ready, this problem is coming. and it is. so that's the context for this embarrassing display that we saw today in the senate. whatever you want for the fossil fuel industry, even if it's the right to leak and pollute and maintain your equipment worse than your own industry recommends, we got your back.

pull it away. what could possibly go wrong? well, here's what could possibly go wrong. the natural systems that are being disrupted by these emissions control the weather and the weather produces climate risk and the insurance industry has to look forward accurately because it owes that duty to its shareholders, and they look forward and they say is whoops, we're out of here. and then the cascade begins, insurance to mortgage to property values to a general economic crash expected by the economists to be $25 trillion globally. it's really pretty stunning. so let me go through some of my charts here.

here's a chart that looks at the scenarios for the future with respect to how carbon emissions and methane emissions will endanger our safety. this is derived from all the peer-reviewed scenarios that were provided over the years to the ipcc, the international climate tracking body. they looked bat 1,200 of them -- they looked at about 1,200 of them. of those 1,200 various climate scenarios, there are 11 left. 11 out of 1,200 that allow us to get us to a pathway of climate

safety. only 11. they all have two characteristics. they overshoot first, so you need to have carbon capture and specifically direct-air capture to get us back on the pathway to say. -- to safety. it's not enough to stop the polluting. you actually have to extract the excess carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. trump just demolished all the offices at the department of nrc that support -- of energy that support carbon capture, which is a little weird because the fossil fuel industry has depended on carbon capture for rhetorical support of its continued pollution. the argument roughly is, don't

worry about us continuing to pollute because carbon capture is going to come along and save the day. of course, that rhetoric is not backed up by investment because over and over again they refuse to actually build carbon capture equipment. it's a talking point, not a real solution that they will put any investment behind. and when regulators try to say, think about carbon capture. they say, oh, no, no, no. that's not a serious technology. we can't do that. if we're going to continuing polluting, but if you actually want us to apply it oh, no, it's a different thing. we're not going to talk about that. so here they all are. they all overshoot. this one just by a little. so you need that direct-air capture. then the other thing that they all need, they all need a price

on carbon. they all need for it to stop being free to pollute. it is now mandatory, if we are going to get on a pathway to climate safety, that there be a price on pollution. the free-to-pollute business model that the fossil fuel industry defends so virulently is a pathway to disaster. we have to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions or fail. and today was the little canary in the coal mine for how

responsible we'll be about putting a price on carbon, because today we blew up a price on methane and even more dangerous -- an even more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, under circumstances in which we had literally paid the industry $1.5 billion as a bounty to clean up its own act, and then limited the penalty, the methane fee, to only those companies that couldn't meet even their own industry standards. and you can bet that the industry standards are pretty generous to the industry. nobody develops standards that are terrible for their own industry. this was their self-imposed industry standards, and only the ones that couldn't meet their own industry standards would pay the penalty. and we just stripped that away. the methane fee is headed for

gone. so if that's the canary in the coal mine of where this body is going to be, now that we have to put a price on carbon or contestimony our children and our -- condemn our children and our grandchildren to worsening climate disaster and worsening economic disaster, what a signal we just sent, what a shameful, disgraceful signal we just sent. here's some of the stuff that's coming our way. let me start with some of the work that we did in the budget committee. we went out and we dug out from

the insurance industry information about their nonrenewal rates. what's a nonrenewal rate? well, a nonrenewal is when there you are, the customer of the insurance company, and it comes time of the year when they renew your policy, send you the new bill, all of that, but this time even if you've been a good client paying your premiums regularly for 15, 20 years maybe, what comes in the mailbox isn't the updated contract and the new bill for you to pay. nobody, it's a -- nope, it's a notice saying you are fired as our client. we are not going to have you as a customer anymore. how many businesses want to tell a loyal customer, go away.

this is not ordinary business behavior. it's driven because they can't figure out the risk of your property any longer. so they nonrenew you. they don't want your check any longer. they don't want you as a customer any longer because your property is now so unpredictably dangerous to them, that they just walk away. and where is it happening? well, guess what. florida is at the epicenter. louisiana is at the epicenter. california, because of wildfires, is at the epicenter. it spreads all across -- most heavily the coastal areas. but wildfires are catching up. don't woe and then this -- don't

worry. and then this measures the rate of increase. it's not just a question of how many nonrenewals. it's how many more each year. how much is the insurance company increasing its shedding of customers. so you see it popping up here in montana, from florida to montana, spread all over. and after we did this research, folks came in behind us and did some more detailed research. so we'll start with this one first. this took our research and the insurance information that we used, and it also projected

climate risk forward. and, by the way, there's a lot of this happening. this isn't just, like, people making this stuff up. there are entire firms that are predicting climate risk for insurance companies, for banks. this is a booming and expert area because people need to know. they need to get it right for investment purposes. so this is "how climate change may cause rising insurance rates over the next 30 years." if you go to, let's say, miami down here or just east of phoenix here, you see that the color gets really dark. here along the north florida east coast, the shade gets really dark, and you can't read this on the tv -- on the

skreevenlt but i tell you, that means a 300% increase over the next 30 years. so let's go back to what i said earlier will miami-dade. the average property insurance premium is $17,000. when you're increasing by 300%, you're quadrupling. so four times $17,000, that's $68,000 every year average for miami-dade county if this comes true. now, to get just a little bit mathematically here and wonky, if you look at the present value of a $68,000 charge every single year out into the future, you get a big number.

and that number comes right off the value of your property. if your home is for sale -- and let's say it's a $500,000 home -- and somebody comes and they say, well, that's a $500,000 home. i'll pay you $500,000 for it. that makes perfect sense and you say, but, there's this other little consideration, which is that when you buy that home, you're also buying into a huge -- for the purpose purposes of our argument, say, $20,000 -- annual charge. well, if you're offered that deal, here's a home worth $500,000. will you pay $500,000 for it? sure, i will. it comes with an annual $20,000 cost that you have to carry.

you going to pay $500,000 for that? of course you're not, because you're going to bake into the value what the present value is of those $20,000 payments you make year after year to keep your home insured. so property values crash when home insurance premiums spike. as you see, it's the wildfire and coastal areas that are hardest hit across red and blue states alike. and when those premiums increase, and the housing prices fall, here is where home values may decline because of climate change. how far are we looking forward? 30 years. why 30 years go this? because that's how long a mortgage is. in the life of a mortgage.

so, here you see the maps look kind of alike. this one is happening quicker, so, the response is quicker, the colors get darker quicker, there's more of the map that's darker. but this, this is where it really hits home. this is change in home value due to insurance costs over the 30-year life of the mortgage. it goes from no change expected at all in all of these tan a areas, all the way up to minus 100% change in home value. that's pretty easy math. minus 100% change in home value means your home is worth nothing any longer.

and that is popping up all over. so, solving for this is a real and now problem because who's going to look forward 30 years to see where a home will have no value any longer? banks that are issuing mortgages will. so this isn't a 30 years from now problem. this is a now problem as banks start to look at this information and wonder about putting a mortgage on a property whose collateral value to them at the end of the mortgage will be zero. that is not a good business probable significance for them. and from a bank solvency point of view, it hits them at the

heart of their loan-to-value ratio based on the value of their collateral. so it puts them in peril as a solvent institution as well. so banks are going to start looking at this stuff way ahead of 30 years. indeed, they're starting to look at it already. so, why does the fossil fuel industry need to spend so much money preventing congress from taking proper action when the science has been so clear for forever, the chickens are coming home to roost in the economy through the economy in the insurance industry.

the insurance industry is not going to listen to fossil fuel lies about what the future looks like when it has trillions of dollars at stake. it's going to continue to get it right, and it's going to continue to back away from risk if we don't solve this. so this is all deadly real and coming now. why does the fossil fuel industry spend so much money to block us in congress from doing this? the reason is -- well, there are several. one is the $700 billion subsidy they get every year from being able to pollute for free, but the other thing is that the public is really concerned about this. the public actually really wants climate action. so they have to defeat public opinion. they have to make this body serve them and not the public. they have to make the senate ignore the american people. and of course, you do that with this massive campaign of dark

money, political influence, fake science, phony front groups, the whole multibillion-dollar operation. because, i know, i apologize to viewers, you can't read this. this is a polling chart. with a sample size of around 2 thousand people, a pretty serious poll. i had the guy who i know who is a pollster take a look at it. he said, yep, this is solid, this is the real deal. so, let's look at what it shows. we'll start with the second one down, the second one down right here reads penalties on high-pollution imports. of the survey, 12% of americans were opposed to penalties on

high-pollution imports. 12% opposed to penalties on high-pollution imports. support? 74%. 474% of americans would -- 74% of americans would like to see our economy protected by penalties on high-pollution imports for, among other reasons, to make sure our manufacturers have a fair chance when we're not high pollution, to make sure that those high-polluting foreign companies pay a penalty in order to come into our market. 12% to 74%. that is a huge margin. the american public are eager for us to take political action to solve this problem, which is why the fossil fuel industry has

to come in here and spend so much money and use so much pressure and get so much influence and put $100 million into trump's political coffers, plus whatever they did in dark money. they have to do all that because the public is on to what is going on. here's another one, reduce carbon pollution across industry. 9% opposed, 76% positive. if my math is right, that's a 67% swing between opposed and supported. that is massive public support for reducing carbon pollution. putting carbon pollution limits on big companies, 12% opposed, 72% support. a differential of 60%.

the american people are really, really leaning in to carbon pollution limits on big companies. they would love to see that, by a margin of 72 to 12. and then here's the one that relates to what we've just done to today, impose a fee on big polluters. impose a fee on big polluters. 10% opposed. 10% of americans are opposed to imposing a fee on big polluters. 74% of americans support it. a 64% differential. 74 to 10. that is a rout. that is a mandate. but what did we do just today?

about that mandate? we just voted down a fee on big pol polluters, even though it was front-loaded with a $1.5 billion chunk of corporate welfare for them to spend to clean up their messes. shouldn't be the taxpayers' business to get a corporation to clean up its messes on its own, but this is the fossil fuel industry, so that's what we did. we gave them $1.5 billion to take care of their own equipment. and then we asked, once that's done, when this fee goes into effect, you're going to have to pay if you're still polluting. you don't have to pay a nickel if you only meet your own industry trade association

standards. but if you can't even meet your own industry trade association standards, there will be a fee. so 1.5 billion in free corporate welfare for the polluters to clean up their equipment, and in return a fee on big polluters. you got to be a big polluter. it's not the little guys we're going after here. and you got to be worse than your own industry standard. that's the population we were dealing with here. and we just voted down a fee on big polluters. not all big polluters. in this case, the big polluters who don't even meet their own industry standards for leaks. we just voted that down. even though 74% of the public would like to see fees on big polluters, and even though only

10% would oppose that. why do we behave this way in this body? why do we ignore 74% of the american people? why do we follow the 10% who don't want this? in a democracy where the majority is supposed to rule, and we have a 74-10 vote? fossil fuel industry influence, plain and simple. because the public, oh, my lord, they are so with it. even something like, get really rough here, phase out the burning of fossil fuels? 26% oppose, 54 support. 2-1. for something as strenuous as phasing out of burning of fossil fuels. stop new fossil fuel projects, 25% oppose, 48% support. 2-1 support for something as

strenuous as stop new fossil fuel projects. that's where the american public is. everybody gets that you shouldn't pollute for free. i mean, for pete's sake, if you go to somebody's house and you knock over your soda, you go get a napkin and you clean up your mess. this is basic stuff. when children make a mess, what do their parents tell them? no, you're not going to the movies, no, you're not doing whatever you want, until you clean up your mess. put your stuff away. you made that mess -- clean it up. it's basic responsibility that we apply to children. but will we apply it to the fossil fuel industry? no. because they come in here squirting money all over the place, making threats, and using this whole armada of client denial front groups to pretend that what is true is actually false. if you think that's because some

green people say that, no. the insurance industry is saying this, because the insurance industry is saying the risks of climate change are so real, we have to get out of certain markets, we have to quadruple our rates in certain areas, we have to have additional props from state government to stay in the state at all. do we have an alternative? boy, do we ever. we got a great alternative, and that's why 74% of americans, versus 10 who oppose, would like to see a fee on big polluters. it's fair, it's right, and there's a real alternative. you can go to wind and solar. this map is of various sections of the world, and it shows where there's good baseline wind

energy to take advantage of. and here is the good old united states of america, best case situation. we are sitting on a free, renewable resource as the wind blows, and all we have to do is build the turbines to collect it. and if you like solar, here's how well we do on solar. you go through the southwest, that is rich country for solar. we could be truly energy independent with wind and solar, free of opec and cartel pricing,

free of all the pollution costs and all the trauma and drama in the insurance industry from those pollution costs. we could be free of all of that, and it would be less expensive. and it's there. it's there for us. it's there for the taking. and with $100 million that was given by the fossil fuel industry to the trump administration, what does the trump administration do? by the way, to clarify, $100 million reported. dark money, $500 million, $1 billion, who knows. trump asked them for $1 billion in that quid pro quo meeting down in mar-a-lago. said give me $1 billion and here's what i will do for it, went through the checklist. we know they got $100 million

for it. what he said in his fake energy emergency declaration, he said that all of this solar, all of this wind potential, he said it's not even energy. if you look at how he defines the word energy, it's every kind of fossil fuel and nuclear and hydro. no solar, no wind. it's not even considered energy, which is weird because there are a bunch of states in which solar and wind are really big. once you get past california, the top three states for solar are all red states.

the top states for wind are all red states. i've been to iowa to look at the wind farms out there. iowa has the highest concentration of wind power of any state. it has so much wind power that the grid operator in iowa has figured out that it can treat the wind as baseload power. there's a common, forgive my term, knucklehead argument that what happens when the wind stops blowing. well, the wind doesn't stop blowing, not everywhere. you may have a still day in one place, but there is enough wind blowing around iowa that the grid operator. not a greenie, a technician who has the duty to keep the grid up and operating has determined that they can dial in wind as

baseload because somewhere it's going to be operating. so we have enormous, enormous capacity here. wind and solar are big contributors to the energy portfolio in major red states. there is no logic, there is no sense, there is no integrity to saying that wind and solar aren't even energy unless you're listening to the worst, worst voices in the fossil fuel ind industry, the ones who don't dare to compete with wind and solar because they know it's che cheaper. and it's not enough for them to sit on a $700 billion annual

subsidy to suppress wind, to suppress solar, to move costs that should be there on to the general public, it's not enough to enjoy a $700 billion subsidy every single darned year. now they've got trump to say that solar and wind aren't even energy. aren't even energy. it has gotten just wild. and here's an example of the cost. this is a residential area in los angeles taken in the fires that just burned. pretty serious tragedy for those individuals who lost their homes, lost all the treasured possessions that they cared about. also a tragedy for pretty much everybody in california because

there's already been a $1 billion assessment from the california backup insurance plan, the state plan, the fair plan they called it on insurers. sorry, guys, need $1 billion from you to prop up our state plan. and, by the way, half of that billion, you collect it from your customers. all customers are going to pay an extra half billion dollars from this in california. and california is only the most recent example of wildfire damage. in oregon, you have entire towns destroyed by wildfires. good luck getting insurance in those areas. so the pain is very real. the cost is very real. the damage to markets is very real. and it's all to try to keep out the truly low cost power. here are electricity costs over

time. it starts here back in 2009. here we are in 2023. this, the lowest cost, is wind. the next one up, the yellow here used to be expensive. used to be the highest. now it's just an inch above wind as the lowest cost electricity, and it's solar panels. next up natural gas. next up, geothermal. in this race down here, wind and solar beat natural gas all the time.

again, that's why the fossil fuel industry has to come to congress with its phony front groups, with its super pacs and dark money and its influence and throw its weight around, because even natural gas loses on price to solar and wind. and now their response is so crude as to get the guy who they put $100 million into the political pockets of to define energy as not even including solar and wind. here's some of the threats that we've heard. this is from the article i showed you earlier, front page "economist" magazine, not a green publication. this is about the indication to the world's real estate markets. it begins by saying if i recall

the article correctly, that what we're looking at is a shock to the largest asset class on the planet. the impending bill from climate damage, the impending bill is so huge in fact that it will have grim implications not just for personal prosperity, not just for homeowners, not just for people who have to pay the high insurance costs, not just personal prosperity, but also for the financial system which aligns exactly with what the chief economist for freddie mac said. this cascades. insurance market fails, mortgage markets fail, property values fall, and the financial system crashes. that's why the financial stability board wrote this report warning of systemic, is

the magic word, dangers to the financial system. systemic sounds like a super boring word, but in the context of economic dangers, it's the most terrifying word there is because it means that the economic danger has jumped the fence. it means that it's no longer the affected industry that's affected when things go wrong. it means that it's so bad that it cascades out across the economy. like 2008, when a bunch of crooked mortgages and a bunch of creepy ratings blew up the whole national economy. you didn't have to have a bad mortgage to be hurt in that. everybody was hurt in that. that is a systemic harm. and here's how it's going to work, they say. if the size of the risk, this risk to property values from the insurance load and from direct destruction by hail and storms

and everything else. if the size of the risks suddenly sinks in and borrowers and lenders alike realize the collateral underpinning so many transactions. the collateral is not just behind an individual mortgage but behind the big tranches of mortgages that are bought and sold, behind fannie and freddie which buy huge numbers of mortgages at risk. the collateral underpinning so much transactions is not worth as much as they thought, a wave of reprising will reverberate through financial markets. this is what we are spinning towards. conclusion from the economist, climate change, in short, could prompt the next global property

crash. climate change, in short, could prompt the next global property crash. i don't know how much more clear the warning could be. and it's not just the "economist" article. here's the corporate consultancy to lawyer. again, the economist is not a liberal paper. it is not an environmental paper. it is a very conservative business-oriented paper. the financial stability board is not a bunch of green new dealers. it is people whose job is to protect the international banking system. and deloitte is a corporate consultancy. if we allow climate change to go unchecked, it will ravage our

global economy. if we allow climate change to go unchecked, it will ravage our global economy. how much clearer does the warning have to be? they look, that talks about the global economy. they look specifically at the united states. for the united states, the damages to 2070, their window, 45 years, are projected to reach $14.5 trillion. $14.5 trillion in economic damage in the united states. a lifetime loss of nearly $70,000 for each working american. how many working americans even have $70,000 put away someplace?

they do have $70,000 for each probably in the value of their home. and if their home is in one of these regions where property values are going to fall because of the combination of p insurance cost and insurance unavailability, including a change in home values straight to minus 100% or a zeroing out of the home value, then good luck with that loss of near $70,000. it's going to be hard to stop though even with all the influence peddling that takes place around here, even with all the political pressure, even

with all the dark money threats, all the dark money cajoling and dark money inducements, because solar and battery storage are kind of killing it. i mean, this is solar and battery storage in new u.s. generating capacity additions, the stuff that's being added to the grid. solar is more than half. think of how many people were employed in that new solar construction, and this administration wants to pretend that's not even energy? that's how bad the pretense has to be to grovel before the fossil fuel interests with their big checkbooks to pretend that solar isn't even energy when it's 52% of what was put in last year, 29% was battery storage.

you put solar and battery stoorj together -- storage together, 80% -- 80% of the new electricity generating installations in our country was solar and battery storage. and, by the way, they play really nicely together because when the sun ain't shinning because it's nighttime, your batteries kick in and so solar and battery together move in to baseload country. way cheaper than baseload coal or baseload nuclear or baseload natural gas. but here it comes. here it comes. wind is another 12%. so if you add all this up, it's about 93% of the new power that

came on to our grid, or is coming on to our grid in 2025, 93% is wind, solar, and battery. 4% -- sorry -- 7% is natural gas. so we're doubling down on 7% and taking the 93% and pretending it's not even energy? that doesn't even make sense. but it shows how ferocious and ra patientus the fossil fuel industry is when it uses its political power and its super pacs and its front groups and its dark money and all of that to demand -- that to demand that

we stop defining wind and solar as energy. that violates the dictionary, but that's how their behavior is and that is why today was so aggravating and so wrong because, frankly, the fossil fuel industry should have had the decency to let this one go. pick something else. but what they went forward with was a reasonable fee after a $1.5 billion government handout for leaks of methane, a deadly dangerous climate gas that they're just leaking.

you could fix it with wrenches. fix the pipes, fix the valves, fix the wells. just do it. you should be doing it as a good citizen anyway. but then we gave you $1.5 billion in a free taxpayer handout to do what you should have been doing anyway, so now you're up $1.5 billion, and all we asked in return if you're among the worst polluters in the industry, if you can't meet your own industry standards, well, then you've got to pay and clean up your act. your fee goes to zero if you only meet your own industry stadz for leaks. -- standards for leaks. what could be more reasonable? and yet this industry is to politically rapacious right now that it went after that and that's what we saw today.

that was so low. it makes me think of this cartoon. i don't know how well you can see it. there's a couple of maga folks standing out in front of marringa largo -- mar-a-lago saying we sure showed those elites who is in charge. who is behind the fence? big oil, coal, right there, front and center, and that's what's happening. that's what's happening. electric prices are going to go up. why? because fossil fuel is more expensive. because when you take the industry that is producing 93% of our new additions, there is a reason that the market has

chosen that 93%. they chose it because it's cheaper, it's a better business proposition. take that out and what do you have more of? you have more of the expensive fossil fuel plants. the way this works is that a whole bunch of plants are on the grid standing by ready to produce power as demand kicks in, and the way the grid operators do it is they start with the lowest cost providers. the lowest cost energy. and then as demand grows, they work up the dispatch cue to bring on more and more and more expensive energy sources. so if you strip out the less expensive stuff, if you strip out solar and wind and pretend they're not even energy any

longer, what happens? the more expensive plants are the ones that run more and the bills go up. if you look at the wealth of our country in wind -- in wind capability and in solar capability, we are rich with wind and solar. but if we don't take advantage of those free domestic resources, then we're stuck behind the fossil fuel cartel, behind opec, and we saw what happened after russia invaded ukraine and market prices spiked to feed the european market. we saw the american companies run up their prices even though their costs hadn't gone up, run

up their prices to take advantage of that world market surge. and they made, as a result, the biggest profits in the history of the planet. they gouged the american consumer willfully. that's a risk that goes away of price spikes happening in global fossil fuel markets. that is a risk that goes away when you're counting on god's own wind and solar that we have in such abundance. but when you've got all the special interest packed in mar-a-lago, wheeling and dealing, when it's the a lotters and polluters who are making the -- the a lotters and polluters making the decisions, this is what you get. costs are going up for americans

because of the malign influence of the fossil fuel industry in congress. they just are. it's basic economics, and that doesn't even count the $700 billion worth of harm that the emissions are causing, which are already starting to come home to roost in the insurance market. let me show you one more thing and i will ask unanimous consent to use an oversized slide here. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. this is oversized because it's big. this was a full-page ad in "the new york times," sunday,

december 6, 2009. barak obama was president, and to be absolutely candid, he wasn't doing much on climate. the obama administration went through a long period of not darn much on climate. so this full-page ad was taken out in "the new york times." dear president obama and the united states congress, tomorrow leaders from 192 can countries will gather at the u.n. climate change conference in copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet. as business leaders, the advertisement continues, we are optimistic that president obama is attending copenhagen with

emissions targets. additionally, we urge you, our government, to strengthen and pass united states legislation and lead the world by example. we support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change and need -- an immediate challenge facing the united states and the world today. please don't postpone the earth. if we fail to act now, it is scientificly irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible cons be kwensz -- consequences for our humanity and planet. we realize the world that we have to investing a clean energy economy, it will spur economic growth, create new energy jobs and increase our energy security all while reducing the harmful

emissions that are putting our planet at risk. we have the ability and the know how to lead the world in clean energy technology, to thrive in a global market and economy, but we must embrace the challenge today to ensure future generations are left with a safe planet and strong economy. please allow us, the united states of america, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet. signed by -- donald j. trump. chairman and president. donald j. trump jr., executive vice president. eric f. trump, executive vice president, ee with vong -- ee

vonga -- evonkam. trump, executive vice president and the trump organization. 15 years ago, the guy that now says that solar and wind aren't even energy, despite their prominence in the economies and the grids of so many red states, despite making up 93% of the new capacity added to the grid in this year, that same guy -- please act now. it is scientificly irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. we will spur with clean energy economic growth work we'll create new energy jobs, we'll increase our energy security all

while reducing the harmful emissions that are putting our p planet at risk. signed -- donald j. trump. before the fossil fuel industry was in a position to put $100 million into his campaign to help him get elected, assuming it's only $100 million, could be a billion dollars. i don't know. they use dark money so much, you can't keep track. $100 million is what we could track. there was donald trump telling obama to do a better job, get after this energy stuff. it is irrefutable that we are in deep trouble and america can lead on clean energy, we can be the best there is, we can create jobs, we can develop the

technologies of tomorrow, do a better job obama, get us there. that was what he said then. now what he says is, solar and wind aren't even energy, and he supports this vote that knocked out a reasonable fee on methane leaks -- leaks, for god's sake. and only the leaks that were from the worst industry participants, the ones that didn't even meet their own crummy industry standard for leaks. these are like the bad outliers who won't even meet their own industry standard and got a billion and a half in a corporate handout to clean up their own darn equipment which she should take care of themselves. after all that they come in and undo the fee and obviously

president trump wanted it because republicans wouldn't be doing that stuff here if he didn't. so we're back to the looters and polluters being in charge. we're back to immense harm to the american economy that is already -- that has already started. just look at the florida insurance market. you see it coming. the warnings could not be clearer. with i rap the budget committee -- when i ran the budget committee, i circulated this volume which i will spare you reading right now of all of the reports that have come out. peer-reviewed official reports about the economic risks of climate change. the exposure of u.k. investors, including insurance companies to stranded fossil fuel assets is potentially huge. climate change will threaten financial resilience and

long-term prosperity. investments in fossil fuels and related technologies may take a huge hit. estimates of losses are large and range from $1 trillion to $4 trillion when considering the energy sector alone or up to $20 trillion when looking at the economy more broadly. a third of all oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves should remain unused in order to meet the target of 2 degrees celsius. when that happens, the carbon bubble bursts and you get these massive losses. the losses from the carbon bubble could be a loss comparable to the 2008 financial crisis. that's the carbon bubble. the insurance risk from a

coastal property values crash equivalent to the 2008 morning meltdown is another risk. they're separate risks. they could both take place. and there's a third one which is the wildfire risk which wasn't part of the original coastal risk report. so the risks are piling up and piling up and piling up. it really is time that we take this seriously. the danger to the u.s. economy is deadly real. we are already seeing it landing in people's mail slots in the form of quadrupling of insurance bills, in the form of nonrenewal notices. and that doesn't even count the harm that's being done in the real world. i'm talking about economic harms here, the things that are going to hit people in the pocketbook, the things that are going to make the bills harder to pay around the kitchen table, the

stuff that is in people's financial lives. but before i close, i want to remind everybody here that the stuff going wrong goes wrong in the real world in a way that goes beyond economic measure. the insurance harm, the came are bon bubble harm -- carbon bubble harm, the threat of another 2008 style financial meltdown across three separate fronts, wildfire, carbon bubble, and coastal, all of that just takes a piece of it. but in the meantime, we're also seeing our world turned upside down. we're also seeing changes that are deeply personal. how do you put a value on a grandfather not being able to take his granddaughter to the creek where he used to go fishing, where his grandfather

taught him to fish? and now he can't do that with his granddaughter because it dried up, because it's drought, because the water is too warm for trout to live in it any longer. how do you put a value on that? you can't. when you're dealing with just the economics of climate change, you're already being fundamentally irresponsible because you're not giving due respect to god's creation. there are so many miracles that take place on this planet. i went to delaware to see the arrival of the red knot. a red knot is a bird. it's not bigger than this glass

of water. and it does amazing things. it flies from the southern end of south america all the way up to brazil. and then it flies from brazil to delaware bay. there's no place to land, if you look at the map, between brazil and delaware bay. this is a small bird flying all of those hundreds of miles somehow knowing where delaware bay is and landing there. timed in god and nature's beautiful way, timed to land in delaware bay when the horseshoe crabs are releasing their eggs. and the horseshoe crabs are all

over the beach. and these birds that come in because in god's grace, somehow they knew to fly from brazil to delaware bay then, and that food source would be there for them so they could fuel up and continue the rest of their journey up into the arctic. this is a bird that migrates from the southern end of south america to brazil, across the ocean to delaware bay, and then up to the arctic every year, a tiny little bird that can accomplish that. hell, i'd be tired in a plane flight from brazil to delaware sitting in a seat and being given a soda. these little miracles fly that fl flight. and if we screw this planet up the way we're doing and the different life cycles in this

case of the horseshoe crab and the red knot no longer line up, and when they land, the food source isn't there for them, that species gets clobber ed. what's the value in money of this heroic little species purchasing this amazing achievement year in and year out and suddenly finding out that it doesn't work any longer, that they will starve and die because we fouled up the timing of the natural systems that they need to have work for them. can you put a price on that? no. it's worth zero. it's worth zero.

what is the price of going down off a boat into the water, down towards a reef and as you fall through the water towards the reef and as it becomes clear what's along the bottom below you, and for the first time going back to familiar spots you see that the coral is bleaching white. you see that it's so distressed, that it can't manage the relationship it the coral polyps and the algae and it bleaches white. it's its alarm signal that something has gone wrong in that coral reef. if you look at many coral reefs in the caribbean, it's all white. it's all white. and then it begins to fall apart and pretty soon you have rubble. and what used to be a vibrant living coral reef with all the

glorious colors and all the interacting ways in which nature makes her magic work and all of that is turned into what looks like rubble in a construction site because the water was too warm, the water was too acidic, the oxygen levels were too low, and all of that died. what's the value of that? the value of that is zero to us here in mammon where we only care about things ha can be assigned a dollar value. so it ain't just the economic harm that's coming at us. we are doing something that is so grievously disrespectful to this world that god gave us, to

the natural order of it that sustains our livelihoods on this pl planet, and today was just such an embarrassing, embarrassing example of our disrespect. if you had to pick the most unworthy segment of the fossil fuel industry, it's probably the companies that take such bad care of their own equipment that they're the worst leakers in their whole industry. and that is the population that we served today after having giving them a $1 spoi 5 billion -- $1.5 billion handout and the reciprocal for that was when you're in the worst half, when you're still leaking even though we gave you $is.5 -- $1.5

billion to fix your leak, when that's you that's left, you've got to pay a fee, an incentive to just knock it off, just quit the pollution. we can't do that. shame on us. with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. resolutions.omorrow. members failed to pass a resolution endin the national emergency was declared by the president on his first tan office. they later voted to begin a deten another role repeal

biden era epa waste emissions charge on excess metha gas emissions. more live coverage of the u.s. senate when lawmakers return here on cspan2. ♪ sees fans a "washington journal" our live form involving you to discuss latest issues in government, politics, and public policy. from washington and across the country coming up thursday morning, we will talk with nebraska at republican congressman about the house a budget gop strategy to advance president trump's legislative agenda. we will continue the conversation on congress with wisconsin democratic congresswoman gwen moore taking the look at democrats a trump administration recent action. c spans "washington journal" join in the conversation live thursday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org.

tuesday march 4 watch c-span's live coverage president trump's address to congress first address of his second term in less than two months since taking office for c-span live coverage ends at 8:00 p.m. eastern with a preview of the evening from capitol hill followed by the president's speech which begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern. why should democratic response after the president's speech will take your calls and get your reaction on social media over on cspan2 you can watch a simulcast of the evening's coverage followed by reaction from lawmakers, live from capitol hill. watch president trump's address to congress live to state march 4 beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or simulcast live on cspan2. over on c-span now or free mobile video app. also online@c-span.org. bringing you your democracy unfiltered. looking to contact your members of congress?

c-span is making it easy for you with our 2025 congressional directory. get essential contact information for government officials, all in one place. this compact spiral-bound guide on bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 119 congress. contact information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory cost $32.95 plus shipping and handling. every purchase helps support c-span nonprofit operations. enter the code on the right or go to cspanshop.org to preorder your copy today. clocks out to a hearing on the role of foreign aid and the department of government efficiency. democrats on the committee insisted the agency advisor elon musk should testify on federal cuts. this house oversight and government reform subcommittee hearing is about two hours.