Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 645, which is at the desk.

I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 93, which was introduced earlier today.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, March 6; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Ballou nomination; further, that cloture motions filed during today's sessions ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on Monday evening, reports came out that Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News, acknowledged in a deposition that hosts of the network promoted the false narrative that Donald Trump won the 2020 election.

Asked if he could have stepped in to prevent this, Mr. Murdoch acknowledged that he could have but chose not to--he could have stepped in but chose not to--and expressed regret for not doing so.

To this day, several FOX News hosts continue promoting the Big Lie. They keep spreading the Big Lie despite mounting evidence that, behind the scenes, many top hosts and executives at FOX have recognized that the stolen election narrative is entirely bogus. Nevertheless, they continue broadcasting it all the time.

This morning, Leader Jeffries and I wrote a letter to Mr. Murdoch demanding that he do what he should have done a long time ago: Order Tucker Carlson and other hosts on FOX News to stop spreading lies about the election. They need to stop giving a platform to dangerous and entirely unfounded conspiracy theories that eat at the wellspring of our democracy, and they need to admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent and destructive behavior.

Sadly, too much damage has already been done to our democracy. A significant segment of voters--by some measures, as much as 30 percent of the electorate--still do not believe that the 2020 election was legitimate. What FOX News hosts have done is flat-out dangerous-- dangerous. When people doubt that elections are on the level, that is the beginning of the end of this wonderful democracy because elections are our wellspring. They are the core of what the Founding Fathers set up. It was the great novelty of the Constitution that has spread around the world.

When conspiracy theories like the Big Lie are allowed to grow, violence can ensue, as we all saw for ourselves on January 6.

Mr. Murdoch's testimony is all the more alarming after Speaker McCarthy is reportedly allowing Tucker Carlson to review highly sensitive security camera footage of the events surrounding the violent January 6 insurrection. Sharing that footage is a grave mistake that risks emboldening the supporters of the Big Lie.

Mr. Murdoch, FOX News executives, and hosts all have a choice--a very important choice: They can continue broadcasting lies about our elections and further erode trust in our democracy or they can admit their mistake, start telling the truth, and move beyond this shameful chapter in their company's history by coming clean with their viewers and with the American people. We hope Mr. Murdoch

heeds our call. The survival of our democracy is too important.

Mr. President, on the new bipartisan bill, later today, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Brown and Vance of Ohio and Fetterman and Casey of Pennsylvania--a bipartisan group--plan to introduce the Railway Safety Act of 2023.

In the aftermath of the terrible accident in East Palestine, this is precisely the kind of proposal we need to see in Congress--a bipartisan rail safety bill, one that includes provisions relevant to the accident that happened a month ago.

I salute them for this fine bipartisan effort and commit to them that I am going to work with the sponsors of the bill to move this bill forward. We should pass it--a bipartisan bill--here in the Senate and hopefully in the House. I will do whatever I can to make sure that happens.

The bill is as smart as it is necessary. It includes provisions to increase safety protocols for trains with hazardous materials, new requirements for crews operating trains, and increases the fines that can be imposed on rail companies that engage in reckless behavior.

We must do more because an accident like the one in East Palestine didn't come out of the blue. On the contrary, the Chair of the NTSB said the Norfolk Southern derailment was 100 percent preventable. The fault here lies with rail companies that spent years lobbying to slash crucial safety regulations intended to keep people safe. It has created a dangerous culture where the profit motive is king above all others, even above the need to keep people safe.

There are countless small towns just like East Palestine across America with rail lines running through them. In my dear State of New York, there are lots of them, particularly in Upstate. They are all at greater risk when rail giants work together to slash safety, slash worker compensation, and place shareholder returns above everything else.

Republicans have been trying mightily to turn ESG into their newest dirty little acronym. They are using the same tired attacks we have heard for a while now--that this is more wokeness, that it is intrusion into the markets, and on and on and on.

But Republicans are missing or ignoring an important point: Nothing in the DOL rule imposes a mandate.

Again, let me repeat that: Nothing in the rule they seek to undo imposes a mandate.

It merely says that if fiduciaries wish to look at ESG factors and if their methods are shown to be prudent--it is a very narrow rule--then they have the freedom to do so--the freedom to do so. It is literally allowing the free market to do its work.

This isn't about ideological preference. It is about looking at the biggest picture possible for investors to minimize risk and maximize returns.

Why shouldn't you look at the risks posed by increasingly volatile climate incidents? Why shouldn't they consider aging populations or other trends that could impact their portfolio?

In fact, more than 90 percent of S&P 500 companies already publish ESG reports today.

The present rule gives investment managers an option. The Republican rule, on the other hand, ties investors' hands--no freedom for companies to choose what they think is right.

Republicans talk about their love of the free market, small government, ``let the private sector do its work,'' but their obsession with eliminating ESG would do the opposite, forcing their own views down the throats of every company and every investor.

I say: Let the market work. Let the market work. Mr. and Mrs. Free Market Republicans, what the heck are you doing here? Imposing your views on these companies?

If the market naturally leads to the consideration of ESG factors, then Republicans should practice what they have long preached and get out of the way.

AUMF--we have a lot to talk about today, and there are a lot of very important issues before us. I want to offer a brief but heartfelt thanks to Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Risch, as well as Senators Kaine and Young, who have worked so diligently for this proposal for so long, for reaching an agreement to mark up next week a long-awaited measure that many of us have waited for: a repeal of the Iraq AUMF.

I am glad that this effort has been, for the most part, bipartisan and bicameral. It was bipartisan and bicameral under full Republican control of government, under full Democratic control of government. And it is now every bit bipartisan under divided government. It is staying bipartisan. There is support on both sides of the aisle for this proposal.

Because both Democrats and Republicans have come to the same conclusion, we need to put the Iraq war

squarely behind us, once and for all, and doing that means we should extinguish the legal authority that initiated the war to begin with.

So thank you. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, and thank you, Ranking Member Risch, for moving forward with this repeal in your committee. And, again, kudos and accolades to Senators Kaine and Young for their great work too. We haven't yet passed this, but their work gives us a real chance to see some light finally at the end of a long tunnel. It is my hope that we can bring this bill to the floor during this work period.

Now, later today, I will join a number of Senate Democratic colleagues to talk about a new report that throws a spotlight on the dangerous ways the Republican budget proposals would harm average Americans.

As has been the case so many times this year, this report tells a story of contrasts. On the one hand, Democrats and President Biden have spent the last 2 years reducing the Federal deficit, lowering drug costs, lowering people's energy bills, and making sure the wealthiest pay their fair share.

But here are just a few of the things the Republican budget proposals would do. Listen to this. The American people ain't going to like it.

Republican proposals would push millions of Americans off Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 70.

Republican proposals would privatize Medicare, which would gut seniors' benefits, threatening their access to guaranteed services, and force those who are able to remain on Medicare to pay higher premiums.

Republican proposals would cut Medicaid by $2.2 trillion and end coverage for tens of millions of Americans, especially people with disabilities, seniors, and families living on lower incomes. A large part of Medicaid goes to help people who are in nursing homes and assisted living, and that takes a huge burden off 30-, 40-, 50-year- olds who want to care for their parents but those high costs are something beyond their budgets.

And Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans and cut VA mandatory funding--and so much more, so much more.

These proposals are anathema, I believe, to the American people, for sure, but even to most Republicans. That is why we Democrats keep insisting that Speaker McCarthy answer the one question we have all been asking and gotten no answer to. The question we have been asking Speaker McCarthy is: Where is your plan?

We believe a plan this drastic will not get the votes in the Republican conference in the House. So, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan.

Republicans love to tout themselves as the party of the average Americans, but actions speak louder than words. When Republicans help tax cheats; call for putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the chopping block; and cut taxes for billionaires and megacorporations, there is no question where they truly stand with the wealthy, with the very well-connected, and with the biggest of corporations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have to admit I come to the floor sort of confounded. For a long time, my Republican friends prided themselves--prided themselves--for being the party of free markets, the party of small government, the party opposed to injecting political ideology into the decisions of private investors and managers and companies. But apparently all that was talk because, today, our Republican friends are making an effort to limit free market choice and inject hard-right ideology into private sector decision making. Republicans are attempting to force corporations and managers, against their will, to turn back the clock 50 years, even if it means getting a lower return on investment--even if it means getting a lower return on investment.

Now, the facts here are not difficult. The Department of Labor recently introduced a rule recognizing that retirement fiduciaries may consider ESG factors when making investment decisions. The Republican proposal, meanwhile, wants to undo that rule, and, across the country, Republican State legislators are trying to punish managers who dare consider, on their own volition, ESG.

Note, Mr. President, that I said ``may''--not ``must''--when describing the rule because the rule that the DOL has put in effect is completely optional. Let me repeat that. The DOL

rule is completely optional while the Republican measure is a mandate. In fact, the current rule goes out of its way to make sure that decision making remains solely in the hands of the fiduciary. Nothing changes the fact that investment decisions must be shown to be prudent above all else.

Now, the hard right has made a lot of noise trying to make ESG their dirty little acronym. They say this is about wokeness, that this is a cult, that it is some grave intrusion into finance. It is the same predictable, uncreative, unproductive attacks they use for anything they don't like.

But this isn't about ideological preference. ESG is about looking at the biggest picture possible so the investors can make decisions that decrease risk while increasing returns. In fact, more than 90 percent of S&P companies already publish ESG reports today. So none of this is new. It has been a long-established practice, one that Republicans suddenly say they don't like and want to forbid.

But why shouldn't managers evaluate the risks posed by an increasingly volatile climate if they deem it helps them get a return on their investment? Why shouldn't they consider the consequences of an aging population or other trends that could impact their portfolio? And even a better question is this: Why are Republicans going out of their way to prohibit investors from making the best possible choices as they manage their funds? Why are Republicans trying to forbid investors from considering climate and other factors if they believe it would help them get a better return?

The bottom line is this: The present rule gives investment managers an option. The Republican rule, on the other hand, ties investors' hands. Republicans talk about their love of the free market, small government, letting the private sector do its work, but their obsession with eliminating ESG would do the opposite, forcing their own views down the throats of every company and investor. The Republican amendment, again, would force their own views down the throats of every company and investor.

You know what we say on this side? Let the market work. If that naturally leads to consideration of ESG factors, then Republicans should practice what they have long preached and get out of the way.

I thank my Democratic colleagues who are joining us in opposition to this measure.

I yield the floor and call the question.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the notices of issuance of final regulations from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights be printed in the Record.

First, some business, and then I will give my remarks.

First, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.