The U.S. Supreme Court has determined as the law of the land that carbon is a pollutant subject to Clean Air Act regulation.
Sheldon Whitehouse
The Public Record
Sheldon Whitehouse is a United States Senator from Rhode Island, serving since January 4, 2007. A member of the Democratic Party, Whitehouse has focused on a range of issues including environmental protection, healthcare reform, and campaign finance reform. He has been a vocal advocate for addressing climate change and has worked to promote policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and protecting natural resources. Whitehouse has also been involved in efforts to reform the political campaign finance system, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in political donations.
The consequences of failing to do that are manifold. There are national security consequences, economic consequences, jobs consequences, quality of life consequences, environmental consequences, and they are all going to become very real…
Should we also be thinking about pursuing a similar disaggregation so that the conservation portion of a utilities portfolio actually has to be separate?
I just want to welcome him back and let him know what a good thing it is to see him back in the institution to which he brought such luster.
I want to thank all of you for your presence here today. This is a very distinguished panel.
I would also ask unanimous consent that the statement of the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, Patrick Leahy, be added to the record.
I appreciate very much that you have been here to speak on behalf of Mr. Lange.
The constitutional prerogative of advice and consent and the Senate tradition requiring the approval of the home State Senators for judicial appointments, I think, lead to wonderful consequences for America in the caliber of the appointees…
You are embarking, each of you, in somewhat different ways on a career of public service that will entail a lot of hard work, a lot of late hours.
I think you have said that you look at these matters case by case and you make a very specific fact-intensive determination based on the particular circumstances of each case, correct?
We do not need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.





