- 5/22/2025
During remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke about the GOP bypassing the Senate Parliamentarian in order to use the Congressional Review Act to eliminate California's Clean Air Act waivers.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Mr. President, today the Senate has done something unprecedented.
00:10Our actions and the ones that will follow from the procedural steps taken here today
00:16over the next day or so will change the Clean Air Act,
00:24will change the Congressional Review Act,
00:28will change the rules of the Senate,
00:33and will do so by overruling the parliamentarian and breaking the filibuster,
00:42in effect, going nuclear.
00:45The Republicans can say what they like about this,
00:48but the fact of the matter is that the parliamentarian ruled
00:54that the Congressional Review Act does not permit what we're doing.
01:02And she did so on the basis of advice from the Government Accountability Office,
01:08which was given that role by the Senate,
01:11given that role in a bipartisan agreement years ago.
01:16So we are de facto legislating here,
01:22amending the operation of the Clean Air Act
01:25to remove a statutory waiver for the state of California,
01:30amending the Congressional Review Act,
01:33so it is no longer the narrow provision,
01:36only about rules with a short time frame
01:39that the senator from West Virginia described.
01:42That may have been what the Congressional Review Act was like until today,
01:46but after today,
01:48none of that is true any longer
01:51because of this action.
01:54It did not have to come to this.
02:00It did not have to come to this.
02:03There were many ways around
02:05the procedural shortcut of going nuclear
02:08where a majority of the Senate
02:13shoves its view on the minority
02:15without consideration,
02:18without cloture,
02:20without 60 votes,
02:21without negotiation,
02:22just rolling the minority
02:27in order to get what they want done.
02:31That ought to be a last recourse
02:34for a desperate majority.
02:37But instead, it was the first recourse
02:39because this is the easy way
02:42to do what the fossil fuel industry wants.
02:46Now, one way to do this
02:48would have been to go and amend the Clean Air Act
02:51and amend the Congressional Review Act
02:55through regular order.
02:57The way the laws were created,
02:59through bicameralism
03:01with both houses passing the bill
03:03and the president signing it.
03:05They've been amended over and over again.
03:07We know how to amend those laws.
03:09That is what we call in the Senate regular order.
03:12But regular order would have required compromise,
03:16would have required effort,
03:18would have required working with Democrats,
03:20and the fossil fuel industry
03:22didn't want to put up with any of that.
03:24They wanted the Republican Party
03:25to jam this through,
03:27and that's what happened.
03:29So, regular legislative order,
03:32not interested, not going to do it.
03:34That was one way.
03:36The second way would have been
03:38to go to EPA
03:40and have them follow an administrative process
03:44which they had already started
03:46in the first Trump administration
03:48to review the three predicates
03:51for the waiver.
03:56Administratively.
03:57Now, the problem is
03:58that would have taken
03:59a certain amount of administrative effort
04:01out of EPA,
04:03and it also would have required EPA
04:07to meet the basic standards
04:11for agency action,
04:13that the agency action
04:14be rationally based
04:16and not arbitrary and capricious.
04:20If they made a decision
04:22that had no rational basis
04:23and was arbitrary and capricious,
04:27then it could be challenged in court
04:29and knocked down.
04:31So, rather than allow the agency
04:33to go through
04:34that administrative process
04:36subject to those
04:37very standard requirements
04:39of not being arbitrary and capricious
04:42and having a rational basis,
04:45they came here
04:46where it can be as arbitrary
04:48and capricious as you please,
04:50where it can have no rational basis
04:51as long as you've got the votes
04:53and are willing to roll the minority.
04:56So, that's the second avenue
04:57that Republicans could have followed here,
05:00that the fossil fuel industry
05:01could have followed here,
05:02but simply didn't want to.
05:05The third avenue
05:06that they could have undertaken
05:08was to go talk to California.
05:11This is California's waiver.
05:14Last I heard,
05:15California had a governor.
05:17Last I heard,
05:19the United States has a president.
05:22They could talk.
05:23They could invite the fossil fuel industry
05:27into the room.
05:28They could invite the auto industry
05:29in the room.
05:30They could invite environmental groups
05:31and health groups into the room.
05:33They could say,
05:33look,
05:34we want to have some consideration here.
05:38Let's negotiate.
05:39But they didn't want to do that
05:43because they had this
05:44quick and dirty,
05:47sneaky maneuver
05:50that they could pull off
05:51so they didn't have to negotiate,
05:53they didn't have to legislate,
05:55and they didn't have to use
05:56regulatory process.
05:59All those rules were available,
06:01and yet this was the shortcut
06:04that was chosen.
06:06Now,
06:07we've repeatedly heard it said,
06:11in fact,
06:11it was recently said just now
06:13on the floor
06:13that President Biden
06:15claimed
06:18that what was being done
06:23with the California waiver
06:24was not a rule.
06:26Claimed
06:26that it was not a rule.
06:29Do you know why
06:29the Biden administration
06:31claimed it was not a rule?
06:33for the simple reason
06:36that it was not a rule.
06:39It did not go through
06:41the APA rulemaking process,
06:43and it had a history.
06:47And I've got a summary
06:48of that history
06:49right here.
06:51The EPA
06:57started granting waivers
07:00to California
07:01under this Clean Air Act process
07:05in 1968.
07:08The first waiver
07:13was granted
07:13on July 11,
07:171968.
07:18and this summary
07:21of the waivers
07:23that have either been granted
07:24or amended
07:25or modified
07:26over the years
07:27131 times.
07:30The score
07:31on whether
07:33the California
07:34Clean Air Rule
07:36is treated by EPA
07:39as a waiver
07:40or a rule,
07:41it's 131 to 0.
07:44It's nearly 50 years
07:49of constant practice,
07:51undisputed.
07:53Under
07:54President Nixon,
07:5615 times
07:57a Republican
07:58EPA
07:59granted the waivers.
08:01Under President
08:02Reagan,
08:0333 times
08:04a Republican
08:05EPA
08:06granted the waivers.
08:07Under President
08:08George H.W. Bush,
08:10nine times
08:11a Republican
08:12EPA
08:13granted the waivers.
08:14Under George W. Bush,
08:1615 times
08:17a Republican
08:19President
08:19granted the waivers.
08:21A waiver
08:22for half a century
08:24has never
08:25once
08:26been treated
08:27as a rule.
08:29So it really
08:31ought to come
08:31as no surprise
08:32to anybody
08:33that the Biden
08:34administration
08:34did not treat it
08:35as a rule.
08:36A Reagan administration
08:38didn't treat it
08:39as a rule.
08:39Neither Bush administration
08:41treated it
08:42as a rule.
08:43No Republican
08:44administration
08:45since the passage
08:46of the Clean Air Act
08:47has treated
08:48these California
08:49waivers
08:49as a rule.
08:52It just
08:52isn't so.
08:56So
08:56it's pretty clear
08:59that
09:00with this history
09:02of waivers
09:04there was a real problem.
09:08And that is why
09:10when EPA
09:11pretended
09:12for the first time
09:13that this was a rule
09:14the Government
09:18Accountability Office
09:19which didn't inject
09:22itself into this
09:23which didn't
09:24butt in
09:24to try to interfere
09:25with us
09:26which was tasked
09:27with giving advice
09:29on this
09:30by the Senate.
09:31We gave them
09:32this job
09:32and now we're
09:32accusing them
09:33of butting in
09:34and interfering
09:34with our process.
09:35We gave them
09:37this job
09:37so they did it.
09:39It's been said
09:40that what GAO
09:41did was unprecedented
09:42in making this decision
09:45that it's a rule
09:46that it's actually
09:48a waiver
09:49and not a rule.
09:50Yeah.
09:51It's unprecedented.
09:53It's unprecedented
09:54in the same way
09:55that a referee
09:57blowing a whistle
09:59on an unprecedented foul
10:01is doing something
10:03unprecedented.
10:04But it's not the fault
10:06of the referee
10:07that their whistleblowing
10:09is unprecedented.
10:10It's the fault
10:11of the player
10:12committing the foul
10:13that has never been
10:14committed before.
10:16And the foul
10:17is to treat
10:18the waiver
10:18as a rule.
10:19So it was easy
10:20for GAO
10:21to say
10:22this ain't a rule.
10:24This is a waiver.
10:25It's not allowed
10:28under the
10:30Congressional Review Act.
10:31Not allowed.
10:33But the GAO
10:34is just advisory.
10:35They don't make
10:35any decisions for us.
10:37The rules of the Senate
10:38are actually
10:39the parliamentarian
10:40and that's where
10:41the going nuclear
10:42happened
10:42because we went in
10:44with the California
10:46delegation staff
10:47and the EPW staff
10:49and the Republicans
10:50and we argued
10:51in front of the
10:52parliamentarian.
10:52GAO wasn't even
10:53in the room.
10:54We filed our pleadings.
10:57We made our arguments.
10:58The arguments
10:58went back and forth.
10:59The parliamentarian
11:00asked questions.
11:02At the end
11:02there was a decision
11:03and in my view
11:04it was a slam dunk decision
11:05because the score
11:07going in
11:07was 131 to 0.
11:11131 times
11:12these waivers
11:12have been granted.
11:13Never once
11:14was it even argued
11:15that they were a rule
11:16let alone decided
11:17that they were a rule.
11:19It was only
11:20when GAO
11:22and the parliamentarian
11:23made the obvious decision
11:25that what the EPA did
11:28in this case
11:28was wrong
11:29that then
11:31the fossil fuel industry
11:34decided that
11:35Republicans
11:37had to go
11:38nuclear.
11:39And that's why we are
11:41where we are.
11:43There is statutory text
11:45in the Clean Air Act
11:47that gives
11:48California
11:50this waiver.
11:51We had testimony
11:52from
11:53Administrator Riley
11:54earlier today.
11:56He was the
11:56EPA Administrator
11:57at the time
11:58this happened.
11:59And you understand
12:00full well
12:01how valuable
12:02it was
12:02to have a second
12:03set of eyes
12:04on this process.
12:05The California
12:06process is so popular
12:07that a dozen
12:08other states
12:09follow it.
12:10And it's in
12:13the law.
12:15The way we should
12:16work around here
12:18is if there's
12:19something in the law
12:19you don't like
12:20you amend the law.
12:22You don't run it
12:23falsely
12:24through the
12:25Congressional Review Act
12:26treat it as a rule
12:27when it's not
12:28overrule a parliamentarian
12:31when she says
12:32it's not
12:33and pretend
12:34you haven't broken
12:35the rules around here.
12:37We have broken
12:38the rules around here.
12:40The other rule
12:41we broke
12:41was the
12:42Congressional Review Act
12:43itself
12:43which says
12:45I'm reading
12:45from the text
12:46of the law
12:47in the Senate
12:48which is where we are.
12:51When a committee
12:52is discharged
12:53from further
12:53consideration
12:54of a joint resolution
12:55which means
12:56that it's come
12:57to the floor
12:57it's out of the committee
12:58which is procedurally
12:59where we are
13:01all points of order
13:03against the joint resolution
13:04are waived.
13:05that's part
13:07of expediting
13:08the process.
13:11Part of the deal
13:12with it being
13:13a very narrow process
13:14for only regulations
13:15and only
13:16in a short time window.
13:19We just heard
13:20the person
13:21sitting in that chair
13:22before this
13:23presiding officer
13:24say
13:25that
13:26under
13:29the rule
13:30just created
13:31we're now
13:32going forward
13:33we just created
13:35a new rule
13:36through this
13:36parliamentary process
13:38and it is that rule
13:40that violates
13:41this law
13:42because now
13:45we have a point
13:46of order
13:46even though
13:47the law says
13:49that all points
13:49of order
13:50are waived.
13:52why did we go
13:57through this
13:57as has been said
14:01the Congressional Review
14:03Act
14:03is kind of
14:04an odd thing
14:05usually
14:06an agency
14:07goes through
14:08a rulemaking process
14:09under the
14:10Administrative Procedures Act
14:11and if they got it wrong
14:13an aggrieved party
14:15can go to court
14:15and say
14:16that was a bad regulation
14:18it's arbitrary
14:18and capricious
14:19it doesn't have
14:20a rational basis
14:21you didn't follow
14:22the APA properly
14:24your findings
14:25are demonstrably false
14:27there isn't support
14:28for the rule
14:29the way you've written
14:30it violates
14:31the actual law
14:32involved
14:32there are a whole
14:33array
14:34of challenges
14:36that you can make
14:36in court
14:37but we wanted
14:39something more
14:40than that
14:40we wanted to have
14:41a political
14:42intervention
14:43narrow
14:46just to rules
14:48just to that
14:50short time period
14:51window
14:51that the
14:51Congressional Review
14:52Act
14:53provides
14:54that was the idea
14:55and the two
14:56concerns
14:57were what we
14:58described
14:58in our argument
14:59to the parliamentarian
15:00as
15:01over submission
15:02and under submission
15:04I'll read
15:06from
15:07our presentation
15:08there are two ways
15:09in which the
15:10executive branch
15:11could try to
15:11defeat
15:11congressional intent
15:13with respect
15:13to the scope
15:14of the
15:15Congressional Review
15:15Act
15:16the first
15:17would pose
15:17an under
15:18submission
15:18problem
15:19in this scenario
15:20an agency
15:21might purposely
15:22refrain
15:22from submitting
15:24an action
15:24to Congress
15:25even when
15:26the withheld
15:27action
15:27meets
15:28the definition
15:29of a rule
15:30under the CRA
15:31right
15:32so there is a rule
15:33it's actually
15:34amenable to
15:34congressional review
15:35under the CRA
15:36but they don't
15:37submit
15:37they just
15:39don't
15:40because they don't
15:40want to subject
15:41to that process
15:42they thought
15:42they could sneak
15:43around it
15:43would be the
15:44would be the
15:45notion
15:45to protect
15:47against this
15:47type of abuse
15:48it became
15:49congressional
15:50practice
15:50to ask
15:51the GAO
15:52for an opinion
15:53as to whether
15:54the withheld
15:55action is
15:55nonetheless
15:56a rule
15:57and to treat
15:58a positive
15:59GAO determination
16:00as a trigger
16:01for the CRA
16:01process
16:02so if an
16:03executive agency
16:04tries to cheat
16:05on exposing
16:06itself to the
16:07CRA process
16:08by not
16:08submitting the
16:09rule
16:09a member of
16:11Congress
16:11can go to
16:11the GAO
16:12and say
16:12hey
16:12what's up
16:13with this
16:13isn't this
16:14a rule
16:14and if
16:16GAO
16:16says it's
16:17a rule
16:17then it's
16:18deemed
16:18submitted
16:18and the
16:19CRA process
16:20begins
16:20that solves
16:21the under
16:22submission
16:22process
16:24we continued
16:25in the argument
16:26the second way
16:27an agency
16:27could work
16:28to defeat
16:28congressional
16:29intent
16:29in crafting
16:30the CRA
16:30would be
16:31this situation
16:32the instant
16:33situation
16:33where an agency
16:34submits
16:35actions
16:35which clearly
16:36do not
16:37meet the
16:37definition
16:38of a rule
16:38under the
16:39CRA
16:39this would
16:41pose
16:41an over
16:42submission
16:42problem
16:43the three
16:44CRA submissions
16:45at stake
16:46here
16:46illustrate well
16:48the slippery
16:49slope
16:49that could
16:49ensue
16:50not only
16:51would treating
16:52them as
16:52rules
16:52override
16:53two
16:54GAO
16:54analyses
16:55and broaden
16:55the scope
16:56of CRA
16:56coverage
16:57in an
16:57unprecedented
16:58way
16:58but the
16:59waivers
16:59are already
17:00in effect
17:00and one
17:01was issued
17:02so long
17:02ago
17:03as to violate
17:04any reasonable
17:05reading of the
17:06time bounds
17:06in the CRA
17:07to accept
17:09these three
17:09submissions
17:10as rules
17:10would be
17:11to reject
17:12the principle
17:12that the
17:13privilege procedure
17:14in the CRA
17:15should be
17:15closely examined
17:16and strictly
17:17limited
17:18agencies
17:20could submit
17:22any final
17:23action
17:23going back
17:25to the
17:25enactment
17:25of the CRA
17:26in 1996
17:27including
17:29adjudications
17:30leasing
17:31contracts
17:32grant awards
17:34and licensing
17:35decisions
17:36and magically
17:38convert
17:39those actions
17:40into timely
17:41rules
17:42that could be
17:44disapproved
17:45under the CRA's
17:46privileged procedures
17:47this would nullify
17:49the reasonable
17:49bounds that
17:50Congress
17:50itself
17:51set
17:52in the text
17:53of the CRA
17:53in the statutory
17:54law
17:55without strict
17:58limits
17:58truly absent
17:59any meaningful
17:59limits
18:00the statute
18:00would be
18:01fully
18:01weaponized
18:02threatening
18:03to destabilize
18:04decades of
18:04agency actions
18:05and hijack the
18:06Senate floor
18:07for the foreseeable
18:08future
18:08which is precisely
18:10the can of worms
18:11that the majority
18:12has just
18:14opened
18:14with this
18:15overruling
18:16of the
18:17parliamentarian
18:18this
18:19establishment
18:20of a
18:21new rule
18:21now the other
18:23problem with this
18:24is that
18:25it provides a way
18:26to evade
18:27court review
18:28court review
18:32is usually
18:32how you
18:33check
18:33action
18:35of
18:35the
18:36executive
18:36branch
18:37when they're
18:38up to
18:38no good
18:39but
18:40very often
18:41they're doing
18:41perfectly reasonable
18:42things
18:43but a special
18:43interest
18:43doesn't like
18:44it
18:44so they have
18:46the right
18:46to go to
18:46court too
18:47but when
18:47they go
18:47to court
18:48first of all
18:49there's a
18:49record of
18:50proceeding
18:50and the
18:52court is
18:52bound to
18:53that record
18:53second of all
18:55there's law
18:56involved
18:57there's both
18:58the administrative
18:59procedures act
19:00and there is
19:01the substantive
19:02law that is
19:02the subject
19:03of the
19:04regulation
19:05then you have
19:07to deal
19:07with evidence
19:08the court
19:09reviews evidence
19:10then there has
19:12to be a rational
19:13decision
19:13by the court
19:15and the court
19:16is what we
19:17know of
19:17as a
19:18neutral
19:19and disinterested
19:20magistrate
19:21those are pretty
19:22essential due
19:23process
19:23determinations
19:24for the
19:25Congressional
19:25Review Act
19:26none of that
19:27the only thing
19:28is the politics
19:29and the votes
19:30you've got the
19:31politics behind you
19:32and you've got the
19:32votes
19:33anything is fair
19:34game
19:35and that's the
19:36danger of what
19:36was done
19:37today
19:37what we've just
19:40done is open up
19:41the Congressional
19:41Review Act
19:42from that little
19:44six month period
19:4560 day period
19:47I'm sorry
19:47all the way
19:49back
19:50to when the
19:52CRA was
19:52passed
19:5330 years
19:55licenses
19:58leases
20:00executive
20:01actions
20:02that have
20:03had
20:04a decade
20:05or more
20:05of reliance
20:06could simply
20:07be brought
20:08forward
20:08dumped into
20:09the federal
20:09register
20:09sent over here
20:10as a
20:11submission
20:11magically
20:14become a
20:14new rule
20:15because of
20:17this loophole
20:18we just built
20:19and then
20:20the majority
20:21of the
20:21senate
20:22with a
20:23compliant
20:23house
20:23can just
20:24shove it
20:25right out
20:25the door
20:25without following
20:26regular order
20:27without ever going to court
20:29without following
20:30bicameralism and presentment
20:32the constitutional requirements
20:34I'll conclude
20:39with two things
20:42first
20:43please don't call this
20:45unprecedented
20:46when you're talking about
20:48GAO
20:49saying
20:51that this was
20:53not a rule
20:54please don't call it
20:56unprecedented
20:57when the parliamentarian
20:59said
21:00this was not a rule
21:01this actually is illegal
21:02for you to do
21:03the only thing
21:06unprecedented
21:07about what GAO
21:08said
21:08and what the
21:09parliamentarian
21:10said
21:10was the fact
21:12that this
21:12rule breaking
21:15by EPA
21:16that's what was
21:18unprecedented
21:18again
21:21131 waiver
21:25determinations
21:25over half a century
21:27always
21:28always
21:29always
21:29treated as
21:30waivers
21:31always
21:32a score
21:33of 131
21:34to zero
21:36but the
21:38Trump administration
21:39flacking for
21:41fossil fuel
21:41decides that
21:43all of that
21:44is wrong
21:44that this
21:46actually is a
21:47waiver
21:47even though
21:48there was no
21:49APA rulemaking
21:50even though
21:50none of the
21:51steps that lead
21:52to a regulation
21:53under the
21:54Congressional Review Act
21:55were undertaken
21:56they just
21:57filed it in the
21:57federal register
21:58and sent it over
21:59as a submission
21:59you could do
22:02anything
22:02that way
22:03file it in the
22:04federal register
22:05send it over
22:05submission
22:06and boom
22:07it's over here
22:08to be kicked around
22:09as a political football
22:10without due process
22:11without bicameralism
22:12without regular order
22:13none of it
22:14that is what was
22:16unprecedented
22:17and the only reason
22:18the GAO's decision
22:20was unprecedented
22:20because nobody
22:21had the nerve
22:22or the foolishness
22:23to do something
22:24so stupid before
22:25so they called him
22:27out for it
22:27for the first time
22:29because nobody
22:30had ever done
22:30such a thing
22:31before
22:31but because of
22:34the politics
22:35that just got
22:36shoved
22:37through here
22:38because of the
22:39power of the
22:39fossil fuel industry
22:40that just got
22:42shoved
22:42through here
22:43this is part
22:44of a campaign
22:46of the Trump
22:46administration
22:47to pretend
22:48that climate change
22:49isn't real
22:50to ignore
22:51the immediate threats
22:52that are looming
22:53over us
22:53of climate change
22:56looming over us
22:57and to serve
22:58the interests
22:59of the fossil fuel
23:00industry
23:00you remember
23:01the president
23:02saying
23:02give me a billion dollars
23:04and I'll give you
23:04everything you want
23:05to the fossil fuel
23:06executives
23:07well he didn't get
23:08the full billion dollars
23:09but he got a lot
23:10of money
23:10he got north of
23:11a hundred million
23:12and now sure enough
23:14he's given him
23:14everything he wants
23:15and this is one
23:16of those payments
23:17this breaking
23:19of the senate rules
23:20this overruling
23:21of the parliamentarian
23:22this going nuclear
23:23this pretending
23:24that something
23:25that was never
23:26a rule
23:26and it's clearly
23:27not a rule
23:28by any reasonable
23:29reading
23:30of what APA
23:31rulemaking is
23:32is suddenly
23:32now magically
23:33a rule
23:34all of that
23:36is being done
23:37as just
23:38a political
23:39errand
23:40for the fossil
23:41fuel industry
23:42and it is wrong
23:43I see the two senators
23:45from California
23:46here
23:46the hour
23:47is getting later
23:48and later
23:49so
23:51I will not
23:53review at this
23:53moment
23:54my presentation
23:57earlier today
23:58where I went
23:59through
23:59the multiple
24:01warnings
24:01of systemic
24:03economic collapse
24:04that is coming
24:06at us
24:07based on a fairly
24:08simple proposition
24:09which is that
24:10climate risk
24:11is making
24:13weather
24:14and risk
24:15unpredictable
24:16and when you
24:18can't predict
24:19weather risk
24:20you can't predict
24:21the insurability
24:22of a piece
24:23of property
24:23the original
24:25concern was about
24:26coastal risk
24:27flooding
24:27hurricanes
24:28rainstorms
24:30damage to
24:31coastal properties
24:32now wildfire
24:33is just as dangerous
24:34and when you
24:37can't predict
24:37it
24:37you can't
24:38insure it
24:39and we are
24:41right now
24:41in the United
24:41States
24:42in the middle
24:42of an insurance
24:43crisis
24:44go ask
24:45around Florida
24:46how property
24:48insurance is going
24:49it is a full
24:50blown
24:51meltdown
24:52and when you
24:54can't get
24:54insurance any
24:55longer
24:55you can't get
24:56a mortgage
24:57on a property
24:58any longer
24:58and when a property
25:00doesn't carry
25:00a mortgage
25:01any longer
25:01when you can't
25:02get a mortgage
25:03on that piece
25:04of real estate
25:05then your buyer
25:06pool collapses
25:07you're left
25:08with only cash
25:09buyers
25:09and what happens
25:10then is that
25:11the property
25:12value crashes
25:13and that's
25:15the prediction
25:15climate risk
25:16to insurance
25:18collapse
25:19to mortgage
25:20unavailability
25:21to property
25:23value crash
25:24to economic
25:27collapse
25:28recession
25:28and it's coming
25:30from all over
25:31all over
25:33and we won't
25:34listen to those
25:35warnings
25:35whether they
25:36come from
25:36insurance CEOs
25:38from Freddie Mac
25:41from international
25:42banking
25:43safety reviews
25:45from
25:46international
25:48economics
25:48magazines
25:49from the
25:51chief risk
25:51officer
25:52of Goldman Sachs
25:53from
25:54the head
25:55of the
25:55Bank of
25:56England
25:56from
25:57I mean
25:58you can just
25:59go on and
25:59on
25:59the warnings
26:00are piling
26:01piling
26:01piling
26:02up
26:02and as
26:04Ernest Hemingway
26:05said about
26:06going broke
26:06it happens
26:08gradually
26:10and then
26:12all at
26:12once
26:13and we're
26:14deep into
26:15gradually
26:15on this
26:16climate risk
26:17mess
26:17and pretty
26:18soon
26:18we're going
26:19to get
26:19hit
26:19with all
26:20at once
26:21and then
26:22all this
26:22foolishness
26:23done on
26:24this floor
26:24in the
26:25service of
26:25the fossil
26:26fuel industry
26:27which has
26:27the world's
26:28biggest
26:28conflict
26:29of interest
26:30and a
26:30history
26:31of lying
26:32and of
26:33dark money
26:34political
26:34influence
26:35is going
26:36to look
26:36pretty
26:37damned
26:38bad
26:38I yield
26:40the floor
26:40to look
26:41to look
26:42at
26:43the
26:43world's
26:44going
26:44to look
26:45at
26:45the
26:46end