Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career of Chancellor Devinder Malhotra. Devinder is retiring this summer from his role as chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities.

Devinder has served as chancellor or interim chancellor since 2017. During that time, the system of 26 colleges, 7 universities, and 54 campuses has advanced its strategic priorities towards building a systemwide identity and leveraging the advantages that come from its scale and scope as one of the largest higher education systems in the country.

Under his leadership, Minnesota State launched Equity 2030, a key strategic initiative that set a critical goal of eliminating educational equity gaps, including by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and first-generation status at every Minnesota State college and university by the year 2030. This work is currently underway and has received broad support throughout the system, including from presidents, bargaining units, faculty, staff, and students.

Chancellor Malhotra led the system through the uncertainty of the pandemic. His commitment and dedication has helped thousands create a better future for themselves, their families, and their communities, all while working to address Minnesota's workforce needs.

I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Devinder for years. I thank him for his service to our State. On behalf of the State of Minnesota, I wish him all the best as he enjoys all that retirement has to offer.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 13; that 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, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Allen nomination postcloture; further, that all time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and, following the cloture vote on the Vera nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m., notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Bernstein nomination; that the Senate recess from 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. for the all-Senators briefing; further, that if cloture has been invoked, at 5 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Vera and Bernstein nominations in the order listed; finally, that the cloture vote on the Pitts nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, during Wednesday's session; and that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Madam President.

Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution before us today. This resolution would overturn the VA's rule protecting veterans' access to abortion counseling and care in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of a woman or her health is in danger; and, unfortunately, it is just the latest attack on women's freedom to make their own healthcare decisions without interference from politicians.

Today, veterans, their spouses, and dependents are protected and have the freedom to receive essential healthcare in the most devastating of circumstances.

By voting yes today, the Senate would take that freedom away. So let's be clear about what this means. A ``yes'' vote means you would be saying to women who are entrusted to protect our national security that they can't be trusted to make their own medical decisions. You would be saying that the person who has been raped or the victim of incest should not have the freedom to get an abortion. You are saying, in effect, sitting in this Chamber that those of you sitting in this Chamber should have the power to decide what healthcare a veteran can receive if she faces a serious or even life-threatening health threat if she continues a pregnancy.

So if you are considering a ``yes'' vote, I ask you, what makes you think that you know better? What makes you think that you should have the power over another person and their body?

This is an insult to the dignity of people, to veterans, and to their families. These are people who have given so much; and yet this body would deprive them of their right to freedom and self-determination, the very rights that they sacrificed and fought to defend.

Colleagues, I understand that people have differing views on abortion. And I

respect that. But I cannot understand why anyone would think that they should have the power to impose their own views on others in such extreme ways, because this resolution is extreme. And everyone who votes for it is saying that when it comes to our Nation's veterans who get their healthcare through the VA, that there should be no exceptions for abortion, even if that veteran has been the victim of rape or incest, even when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the veteran's life or health. That is not just extreme; that is cruel.

Here in this Chamber, some are also going after current servicemembers. There is currently an unprecedented and reckless campaign in this Chamber to hold up the promotions of career military personnel in order to force the Department of Defense to deprive servicemembers of their legal right to seek abortion care.

Let that sink in. They are willing to compromise our national security and leave 187 important military leadership posts vacant in order to enact their dangerous and unpopular anti-abortion agenda.

And they are not doing this because of what Americans want. It is the opposite, in fact. According to a Pew Research Center poll, over 60 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Before I was in the Senate, I worked at Planned Parenthood, and I saw there, firsthand, the capacity of people to make good decisions--moral decisions--for themselves and their families about how and when or if to start a family. So I ask my Republican colleagues to reject this extreme proposal. Ask yourself: Why do you think that you know better than these women, these veterans, whose lives and stories, whose health and family situations you will never know?

And I can tell you: For women, this is personal. They don't want any of us making these decisions about their bodies and their health and their families for them. They are perfectly capable of making these decisions for themselves. So I urge my colleagues to stand with our veterans and vote to protect their rights after they fought so hard to defend ours.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Patrice Kunesh to be the Commissioner of the Administration for Native Americans at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Ms. Kunesh is a descendant of the Standing Rock Lakota and a distinguished lawyer, advocate, and thought leader. She currently works at the Native American Rights Fund, but her career spans from being counsel for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe to being the director of the Center for Indian Country Development at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve--all in the service of Native communities. Ms. Kunesh also served as the Deputy Solicitor at the Department of the Interior and as Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development at the USDA.

The Administration for Native Americans at HHS helps Native communities, including Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives, with financial support and technical assistance for Native language preservation,

economic development, and self-sufficiency.

I know that Patrice is up to the task. She is knowledgeable, experienced, and deeply connected to Tribal leaders and Native communities. She knows how the Federal Government works and how we can best fulfill our trust and treaty responsibilities in Indian Country.

Patrice's nomination is supported by the National Congress of American Indians and numerous Tribal nations. Most importantly, filling this role at HHS is essential to meeting our responsibilities to Tribal nations and Native communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Patrice Kunesh's nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I appreciate my colleagues' remarks today. You know, the issue that we are debating is whether or not retirement plans should be allowed to consider a company's environmental, social, and governance goals when they make investments. That is ESG, and it is pretty simple.

My colleagues and I say that people who make investments for retirement accounts and pensions plans may--they don't have to; they may--consider ESG in their decisions about what stocks to buy so long, of course, as they adhere to their principal fiduciary responsibility, which is to put the financial best interests of their clients first.

Now, on the other hand, our Republican colleagues are saying: No, retirement plans can't consider ESG goals. They are somehow claiming that this rule will undermine free and fair markets--undermine the free market and promote ``woke'' capitalism. And, if you can tell me what that means, then I will look forward to your explanation.

So let's figure out what this is really about.

People invest their life savings for a safe, secure retirement, and a lot of people want those investments in companies that reflect their values, companies that protect the safety of their workers, that have excellent ethics rules in place, guarding against conflicts of interest; companies that are committed to protecting the environment and managing the risks of climate change. In fact, companies with these kinds of positive environmental, social, and governance policies are often good financial investments as well. The two go hand in hand.

The foundation of a free market is that people can decide for themselves where to invest their money, and they should have good, trustworthy information in order to make those decisions so that the market is fair and they don't get taken advantage of.

That is all this ESG rule that we are defending today does. It asserts that investors should have the option, if they choose, to make ESG investments. It is not a mandate. It does not elevate one type of investment over another. All this rule does is allow workplace retirement plans to offer ESG investments as an option to people who want them, provided, of course, that those investments are prudent and provide a safe and secure retirement.

So I can tell you that out in the real world of Minnesota, this is no big deal. For decades, great Minnesota companies have been looking for excellent returns on their investments. That is their job. But they have also been trying to improve how their companies help their community, help their employees, and help the environment. A lot of people would say that is good business.

In fact, ESG investing has been growing in this country for decades. People like it. They want to invest in companies that reflect their values. More than $18 trillion are held in investment funds that follow the ESG investment principle. So this isn't some sort of weird fly-by- night new idea. ESG investing has been routine for years.

But what is new--what is new--is the way in which these extreme Republican politicians whom we see today are trying to turn ESG into their latest tool to rip us apart and to expand their own political power, and that is so hypocritical.

You know, Republicans claim to be believers in a free market and freedom of choice, but, today, with this vote, they are saying you can't even think about basic concerns like protecting the environment and fighting climate change or protecting workers or strong company ethics. You can't even think about those things as you make investments for your retirement. So instead of allowing people to make their own choices about how to invest in their retirement savings, these Republican politicians want to put their political values and the interests of their donors in the middle of your investment decisions.

That is just wrong. It is out of touch, and I don't think it flies-- not in Minnesota and not in most places in this country.

So I hope we can reject this extreme agenda and vote no. This issue is just too important. It is about letting people decide how to secure their own retirement and allowing them to choose investment options that match their values.

To be clear, there are good reasons that people would want to take ESG factors into consideration. It is reasonable to ask whether your retirement is invested in companies that operate sustainably and practice good governance. It is reasonable to say that you don't want to invest in a company with a record of discrimination or mistreating workers.

You know, I have been in business, and I can tell you that these values aren't just good for marketing or investor relations. They are the markers of a healthy, sustainable business--businesses with the capacity to confront risk, to innovate, to diversify, and to meet the needs and challenges of an evolving world for long-term resilience and viability. Businesses that consider these factors do better. It is good business. They make more money.

So, colleagues, I ask for a ``no'' vote, which is a ``yes'' vote for allowing people the freedom to invest their retirement in ways that reflect their values and make money. I also ask my colleagues to join me in my legislation, the Freedom to Invest in a Sustainable Future Act, which would put into law this commonsense rule that we are voting on today.

I commend the Department of Labor for their commonsense rule that we have been talking about, which doesn't force choices. It creates choices.

Let's defeat this resolution and allow people to choose how they want to plan for the future for themselves.

I yield the floor.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, I understand that 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28; 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; further, that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Walker nomination, postcloture; that at 11:30 a.m. the Senate vote on confirmation of the Walker nomination and that following the cloture vote on the Whitehead nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m., if cloture has been invoked on the Whitehead nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, that if cloture has been invoked on the Martinez-Olguin nomination, the vote on confirmation be at 4:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

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

Madam President, thank you to my colleague Senator Klobuchar for those very personal words about our shared friend, Senator Dave Durenberger.

I rise today with my colleague Senator Klobuchar to honor the life of Senator Dave Durenberger, whom we lost, as Amy said, on January 31.

Archie and I send all of our support to the Durenberger family--to Susan, Charlie and Lois, Dave and Heather, Michael and Margaret, Daniel and Jennifer--and to all of the family who loved him so well.

When he was first elected to the Senate in 1978, Senator Durenberger became the first Republican Senator from Minnesota in 20 years, but his political affiliation never defined him. Throughout his 16 years in service in the Senate, Senator Durenberger measured his success by doing work that helped people, not by scoring political points for himself or his party.

Long before arriving in Washington, Senator Durenberger was committed to public service and committed to improving the lives of Minnesotans. He was, as Amy said, a proud graduate of St. John's University and the University of Minnesota Law School. He also spent 2 years as an Army officer and 7 more in the Reserves. Later, he served as chief of staff for Gov. Harold LeVander.

When I became chief of staff to Gov. Mark Dayton in 2010, Dave quickly called me up to offer his advice and support, with his characteristic understatement and dry sense of humor.

In Minnesota, Senator Durenberger was respected as a volunteer, a thinker, a doer. He was always ready to pitch in and help with a wide array of organizations that he saw were doing good work, from those dedicated to environmental protection to conservation, to children's health.

In the Senate, Dave built a reputation as a powerful advocate and expert on healthcare reform. He was instrumental in passing the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, which recognized the civil rights of people living with disabilities, and he was an effective leader on legislation to protect our air and water, to clean up Superfund sites, and to protect public lands so that all of our children and grandchildren could enjoy them forever.

After he left the Senate, he continued to advocate for the things that he cared about, from improving healthcare to protecting the environment. He became one of the Nation's leading health policy experts at the University of St. Thomas and helped to mentor the next generation of health policy leaders.

When I came to the Senate and won a seat on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, a committee that Dave also served on, he immediately reached out to me to offer support and ideas. Every year, he organized a group of young healthcare leaders, through the Health Policy Center at St. Thomas, to come to Washington, and I always made time to sit down and talk with them. It was so great to see how Senator Durenberger continued to instill in these policy fellows the mission of diving in beneath the headlines to figure out exactly what would help to make healthcare more accessible and affordable for everyone.

When Dave was elected to the Senate, he was an Independent Republican, as the Minnesota State party was then called. He later dropped the Republican part and was a proud Independent--always willing to work with both Democrats and Republicans to solve problems. He was an outspoken critic of President Trump, and he lamented the extremism in the Republican Party today. Dave always stood for bipartisanship, pragmatism, and politics that was about improving people's lives. He proudly called himself a progressive Republican. I love that.

If I had to name one thing that characterized Senator Dave Durenberger, it would be his determination to find solutions to the problems that hold people back in their lives, especially problems with healthcare. He didn't care whether an idea came from Republicans or Democrats. He just cared about what was going to make a difference.

As I reflect on his life and his time in the Senate, I am reminded that his Midwestern brand of bipartisan, commonsense, pragmatic politics still lives on in the Senate today. Beneath the headlines and the division and extremism, many of us on both sides of the aisle still carry on his legacy by working together to try to find common ground and solve problems.

Today, as we mourn the loss of Senator Durenberger, let us take inspiration from his example of thoughtful, pragmatic, and results- oriented politics. May his memory be a blessing.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for Annette Christie, Holly Hajare, Sindhu Nathan, and Mary Parrish, all fellows in my office, to have floor privileges for the rest of the current session of Congress.

Can we have the yeas and nays, please?