mrs. capito: vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 52, the nays are 44, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary,

jonathan james canada grey, of michigan, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of michigan. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of h.j. res. 30, which the clerk will report. the clerk: providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code of the rules submitted by the department of labor relating to prudence and loyalty in selecting plan investments and exercising shareholder rights. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from hey hawaii. mr. schatz: there is a group of elected officials in the country

who are who say they're anti-capitalists, but aren't socialists. they are mostly congressional republicans. this cra is gross government overreach on u.s. capital markets. it is designed to prevent pension plans from pursuing esg investing. but make no mistake, it's only the latest step in a campaign to prevent american financial institutions from making money from the clean energy revolution and it should offend anyone who supports free markets. the reason this is happening subpoena that the fossil fuel industry faces a risk wall where the risks associated with climate change are clear enough that retirement plan sponsors may want to consider them when investing assets. the trump administration banned them from doing so, implementing a rule that pension fund managers couldn't consider esg investing. the biden administration's rule

merely reverses this ban going back to a neutral stance. going back to a neutral stance. it's not telling them to do environmental social governance goals. it's saying, do whatever you want. it's none of our business. the federal government has no business in determining how pension funds deploy their resources. but rather than own up to the risk or reduce their emissions, the fossil fuel industry is trying to remove climate change elements from the risk situation. this closely coordinated effort is being driven by a network of dark money organization fronting for climate denial groups. one is the rule of law defense fund. the political arm of the republican state attorneys general association, which urged people to come to the capitol on january 6 and aid in the attempted overthrow of our

democracy. this dark money helps to win elections and the fossil fuel industry is becoming more aggressive because of the increase in green investing. right now more than $8 trillion in u.s. assets is under management employing sustainable investing extras jis, esg investing is expect to represent more than 20% of all global assets in the next years. it is for one reason. it's profitable. some are pursuing sustainable investing at the hes of their clients others 0 look at it as a strategy to grow retirement savings. anyone who is investing is meeting the moment. here is the point. it's their call. it's not our call. that is capitalism in action. and the climate deniers are getting their butts kicked in

the free market and they're mad about it and so they want to make a law to stop the bleeding. imagine an elected official telling an investment firm they can't offer large cap or small cap or emerging market funds or funds even that exclusively for fossil energy. that would be ridiculous, bawtion people would -- because people would get to decide how to deploy their resources. republicans decided for this issue, and only this issue, that that we should tell pension funds managers how they can and can't invest. the inflation reduction act made it so impossible to invest in clean energy, they're losing, they want an intervention from the congress so they decided to categorize esg as something tricky or woke. come on. they're just losing. people don't want to invest in

fossil fuel anymore and so they're asking the congress to intervene on their behalf. this is not how the free market should work. if this passes, it will force financial firms to punish americans on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. we cannot be intimidated. we have to reject this. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, madam president. i rise today in opposition to republican efforts to nullify the department of labor's rule that protects retirees and firms decades of precedent. this rule allows those investing retirees' savings, the freedom to direct those funds where the retirees want them to go. it let's them protect those

funds from costly risks posed by worsening environmental disasters and seek out promising, sustainable long-term investment opportunities. republicans' latest front in their made up culture war is an attack on quote, unquote, woke capitalism and american retirees are apparently their target. republicans have set their sights on retirees who choose to invest their money with environmental, social governance, esg, factors in mind. investors have been doing this for decades. under the employment retirement income security act of 1974, known as arisa, retiermt fund --

retirement fund managers may consider all economic factors when making investment decisions if it's in the best interest of the plan's participants. that includes esg factors, like how a company treats its workers or whether the company is sufficiently protected from climate risks and whether the company respects human rights. and it turns out investors really want to know these things. you don't need to be a financial wizard to realize that whether a company invests in its workers or is vulnerable to climate risks might be relevant to the company's long-term prospects. and the potential returns on your investment. but the trump administration put blinders on investors when in 2020 it financed a rule limiting and made it harder for retirees to invest with esg

considerations in mind. in 2024, the biden administration, department of labor rightfully removed these roadblocks and affirmed that they have the obligation to consider esg factors when making investments on behalf of retirees. let's be very clear about what this rule does not do. it does not mandate anything. it does not require that fisheries fiduciaries invest or not invest in funds, it does not tell fiduciaries to consider or not consider factors. there is nothing new here and certainly nothing extreme. let's be clear. by overturning the department of labor's rule, republicans want to tie investors' hands and override the free market. this fight isn't about protecting and strengthening

america's retirement security. it's not about ensuring that retirement plan fiduciaries are making sound financial investments and it sure as heck is not about capitalism. it's politics, plain and simple. how do i know that? well, republicans clearly believe that investment decisions should be made with consideration of the esg factors so long as they are esg factors that the republicans support. my colleague, senator rubio, has championed legislation that would prevent the federal government's employees' retirement assets from being invested in chinese and russian companies. at the same time republicans also seem to believe that government shouldn't restrict investors' ability to put their money wherever they want. so in response to the department of labor's very sensible

guidance warning about the financial risks of investing in crypto scams, my colleague, senator. mr. tuberville introduced a bill that would prohibit any guidance that would limit the type of investments that workers can make. he said, quote, the government has no business standing in the way of retirement savers who be want to make their own investment choices. so add up what the republicans have already told us with the legislation that they are sponsoring. retirees should have the freedom to invest their hard-earned money in crypto scams, but they should not even be allowed to consider whether a company relies on child labor or is polluting the planet or is underpaying its workers when deciding whether or not an investment is sustainable.

it just doesn't make any sense and it's not supposed to. there is a bigger picture here that americans need to understand. republicans know that president biden will veto this resolution the minute it hits his desk. they know it won't succeed in nullifying the department of labor's rule. so what is the point of doing this? well, republicans have been explicit that the goal of this exercise is to help their buddies in the courts. president trump appointed judges across the country who are now engaged in a disturbing assault on the regulatory state and are hell bent on kneecapping any efforts to make markets fairer, to make workers safer, and to make the environment cleaner. this resolution is just one more attempt by republicans to give an assist to these extremist

judges and make it easier for the courts to overturn the rule and undermine the law. let's call this attack of the department of labor's rule what it really is, a wholly invented grievance to advance corporate special interests, not the interests of retirees. democrats need to stick together on this and reject these cynical efforts to undermine investor protection and empower extremist republican courts. thank you and i yield the floor. ms. smith: i appreciate my colleague's remarks today. the issue we are debating is whether or not retirement plans should be able to consider a

company's governance goals when it makes investments. that's esg. my colleagues and i say when making investments for retirement accounts and investment plans they don't have to but they may consider esg in their decisions about what stocks to buy so long as they adhere to their fish fiduciary interests of their clients. on the other hand, our republican colleagues are saying, no. retirement -- they are saying this rule will undermine free and fair markets, and promote woke capitalism. if you can tell me what that means, i'll look forward to your explanation. 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 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 to make those decisions so the market is fair and they don't get taken advantage of. that is all that this esg rule that we are defending today does. it asserts that invests should have the option, if they choose, to make esg investments. it's 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 that want them, provided that those investments are prudent and providing a safe and secure retirement. madam president, 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's their job, but they have also been trying to improve how their companies help their community, help their employees, and help the environment. and loft people -- 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. this isn't some sort of weirdfully-by-night -- weird fly-by-night idea. this has been routine for years. is new, what is new is the way

in which these extreme republican politicians 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 or 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. instead of allowing people to make their own choices about how to invest their retirement savings, these republican politicians want to put their political values and the interesting -- interests of their donors in the middle of your investment decisions. that's just wrong. it's 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 today and vote no. this issue is just too important. it's 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's reasonable to ask whether your retirement is invested in companies that operate sustainably and practice good governance. it's reasonable to say that you don't want to invest in a company with a record of discrimination or mistreating workers. you know, i've 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 to meet the needs and challenges of an evolving world for long-term resilience and

viability. businesses that consider these factors, they do better. it's good business. they make more money. colleagues, i ask for a no vote, which is a vote yes for allowing people the freedom to invest their retirement in ways that reflect their values and make money. i also ask you colleagues to join me in my legislation, the freedom to invest in a sustainable futures act, which would just put into law this commonsense rule we're voting on today. i commend the department of labor for their commonsense rule we've 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. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. carper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from delaware. mr. carper:before the senators from minnesota leaves the floor, i could not agree with you more. mr. carper: my dad used to talk

to my sister and me about common sense. he always said use common sense. i rise today to talk for a few minutes about three letters, e, s, and g. as aretha franklin might say, to find out what it means to me. now, as my staff knows, i am not a fan of acronyms or jargon. esg, which is shorthand description for a form of investing that takes into account environment, social, and governance factors means very little to the average american worker. let me try to make this simple and real for them. madam president, millions of american workers are saving for retirement or already withdrawing from retirement plan thanks to an employer-sponsored retirement plan like a 401-k. each paycheck hardworking americans do their best, even when times are tight, to put money away for their future and the future of their children and

grandchildren. it's with the hope that down the road, those weekly or monthly contributions will grow over time and help folks retire with dignity, well into their golden years. with some good fortune and prudent investment strategy, retirement accounts can also provide certainty and security so that americans can enjoy their retirement. to take the vacation that you and your spouse always wanted ta charitable donation or maybe send a grandchild to college. those retirement savings often grow thanks with the help of something called a fiduciary, who manages retirement workers' money. there's a federal law, the employee retirement income security act, erisa, e-r-i-s-a, that first passed in 1974, but has been amended many times since to ensure that fiduciaries are doing right by american workers. when decisions are made on

behalf of an individual investor, i don't think it's controversial to say that every american wants their money to grow as much as is reasonably possible. in order to make the best decision for americans' hard-earned retirement savings, i also don't think at this time controversial to say that the federal government shouldn't be dictating investment decisions. it shouldn't. while the previous administration actually blocked fiduciaries from considering economic factors, such as climate risk, i believe that's the wrong approach. trump administration's unpredictable and uneven rulemaking led to confusion in the business community and uncertainty for investors. now, let's be clear -- a range of economic factors, including climate change, can impact investment returns and thus fiduciaries' investment decisions. the reality is that concerns about our environment, that's the e, about the social impact of corporate activities, that's the s, and the corporate

governance structure of companies are all highly relevant fact yo, in assessing returns -- factors in assessing returns on investments in these companies. that's the g. i am pleased that the biden administration has it embraced more of a free-market approach. as my friend from new york, the majority leader, outlined, i think in today's "wall street journal," further this rule reflects what successful marketplace investors already know -- there's an extensive body of evidence that the esg factors can impact markets, can impact industries, and companies. i know testimony of our colleagues are concerned about the e in the esg. i am too. as chairman of the senate committee on environment and public works, i know we can't ignore the e in esg. the economic risks from climate change are real and they are significant, and fiduciaries must be allowed, allowed to consider whether those costs ma i well lower the returns of an

investment, or not. unfortunately, our colleagues' efforts to nullify the current department of labor's esg rule threatens the principles-based process that has worked well for nearly 50 years. we should be making it easier, not harder, easier, for investors to evaluate the sustainabilities, commitments from our corporations who want to do what's good for business and good for our planet, this planet that we call home. with that, i call on my colleagues to join me and many others in opposing the cre before us today. madam president, with that i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. you know, i'll be honest, based on the arguments i have been hearing, i'm not sure everyone that is opposing the biden administration's esg rule has actually read the policy. some of the arguments for the resolution overturning this rule simply don't add up. in fact, they are a contradiction. esg investing is simply the practice of taking into account the environmental, social, and

governmental practices of companies that you invest in. so for instance, just as a hypothetical, if you are against investing in so-called woke causes, you're actually laying out your own esg criteria. and here's the thing. the biden administration rule would allow that. they would allow that. because -- and this is an important point i think folks are missing -- the biden rule is fundamentally neutral on how esg factors are taken into consideration so long as the investment fund is meeting its fiduciary obligations to its beneficiaries. i'm not sure anyone gets that because the fact of the matter is, some of the same people who are railing against this rule and against esg investing have advocated for positions that essentially are esg investing. when republicans push for legislation to protect local and state governments that divest

from companies based on their policies toward israel, that is a form of esg investing. it is also worth noting if you manage a retirement plan for a faith-based organization, and you want to make sure you are investing in accordance with your client's faith, that, too, would be esg investing. and when we call for divesting from foreign adversaries due to human rights and national security concerns, again we are actually talking about esg investing. and if anyone wants to argue that's different, that is a matter of national security, i'll note there is no question climate change is also a really serious national security issue. but, madam president, that's honestly beside the point here because let me say it again. the rule we are talking about is neutral, neutral on whether a fiduciary is considering these factors from a particular perspective. this rule is not about saying the left or the right taking on a given environmental or social

governance issue is correct. it's about acknowledging these factors are reasonable for asset managers to consider. it's about risk mitigation to safeguard retirement plan savers' nest eggs. it's about letting these asset managers do their jobs without government getting in the way. that shouldn't be contra vecial. it actual -- controversial. it actually should be common sense. when it comes to environmental factor, shouldn't financial advisers have the freedom to consider environmental practices when climate disasters cost trillions of dollars a year? shouldn't they have the freedom to take into account whether a company is adopting sustainable practices that reduce its costs and consumption or if it is moving to clean energy that makes it less reliant on foreign oil. and when it comes to social factors, we live in a diverse nation. that's part of what makes our

country so vibrant and strong. shouldn't financial advisers have the freedom to consider whether companies are doing the most to tap into that strength? shouldn't they have the freedom to account for whether companies are well situated to serve and speak to the broadest range of people? or to grow by reaching communities who are currently underrepresented in their customer base? and when it comes to how companies are governed, we are facing workforce shortages today. companies are having huge challenges finding and retaining workers. so shouldn't financial advisers have the freedom to consider how well companies are paying their workers? or how seriously they take safety and issues like workplace harassment or would sorts of benefits they may provide to retain workers like child care, paid leave or more? these are concrete factors that have huge implications for companies' bottom lines. so why wouldn't we give advisers

the freedom to consider them. why do republicans want to tie their hands and meddle in the free market by reversing this balanced, neutral rule? madam president, despite the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, despite how badly some of my colleagues seem to be missing the point, at the end of the day this is actually pretty simple. financial security is about planning for the future and you can't plan for the future if you aren't allowed to consider the environmental or social or gomp nantz factor -- governance factors that are shaping it. i urge my colleagues today to join me in voting against this resolution. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i'm delighted to join my colleagues here to talk about this so-called antiwoke capitalism or antiesg scheme

that has been promulgated -- propagated. i think the important thing to begin with is to understand what is happening out there, why this has happened. the republicans would like us to believe that some bizarre viral epidemic of wokeism has spread into america's great financial companies, into the investment advisers, into the banks, into all kinds of fiduciaries and that that needs to be somehow excised. that is not what has happened. this is pre-- preposterous magical thinking. what has happened is that the long forecast dangers of climate change that scientists have been telling us about for years have now gotten so real and so immediate that they have hit the

due diligence horizon big banks, big investment companies, corporate board, and other fiduciaries. when you owe somebody else a fiduciary duty like your shareholders or your investors or your customers at a bank, then you have to tell them the truth, and you have to tell them the truth about risks and the risks associated with climate change, the risks caused by the fossil fuel industry's relentless emisses are now so -- emissions are now so real and immediate that they can't be denied by big institutions that have no real interest in climate change but are absolutely obliged to tell the truth as fiduciaries. and so that fiduciary fiduciaryd has been crossed and the fossil fuel industry which is used to bullying to get its way is now pushing this completely fake

anti-esg effort in order to try to undo what the free market and what real life and facts and fiduciary obligations are causing other industries to deal with. the one telltale clue here is that when they're done talking about woke capitalism and when they're done talking about anti-esg stuff, when you actually look at what the objection is, what the specific thing is that they're pushing back against, in the esg it's always the e. it's never the s. it's never the g. it's not social stuff. it's not governance stuff. it's environmental stuff. and within that e for environmental stuff, it's e for emissions. that is always the graviman of the complaint. so that tells you a lot about

who's behind this and who is pitching it tells you a lot about who is behind it because you have fossil-fuel associations like the attorney general association that is cranking up and turning out republican attorney generals to push this theory. you've got the republican state treasurers often funded by the fossil fuel industry and a group called the state financial officers foundation which is -- the state treasurers together to try to push on this. you have the state boards like the texas railroad commission, again heavily, heavily, heavily involved with the fossil fuel industry that are pushing all of this. when you look at what it is, can you see that it's -- that its target is always fossil fuel emissions and you can see its proponents are always fossil fuel funded. that tells you why we are where we are. the rule that the fossil fuel

industry pushed through the trump administration, an administration that did essentially everything the fossil fuel industry wanted it to do, would have restricted the ability of investment professionals to deliver the products that customers actually want and prevent them from looking at environmental risk, social issues or governance. again, this is really about the environmental piece. the biden rule just undoes that. nobody has to do esg stuff. that's dictated by customer demand. if you want to and if your customers are demanding that and if you want to protect them from climate risk, well, there you go. you have to do it. another clue about the mischief here is who some of the promulgators of -- propagators of this theory have been. one is the heritage foundation of the heritage foundation is a notorious climate denial group. has received millions of dollars from the koch brothers political

enterprise, from koch foundations. and has plenty of fossil fuel ties. the texas public policy foundation, another group that is a front group for the oil and gas industry. i've already mentioned ragga which is heavily fossil fuel funded. includes scott pruitt from epa disgrace. they had such control over raga that they were able to get him as the attorney general to write a letter with the identical text from a fossil fuel company, send it into the epa under his own letterhead, under his own signature as attorney general even though the entire text was written by a fossil fuel company. so that's the kind of relationship with raga which by the way also helped turn people out for the january 6 insurrection, really, really high quality operation there. the last group that i'll mention is the marble freedom trust.

the marble freedom trust is the 501(c)(4) pop-up operation that magically appeared in utah to be the recipient of a $1.6 billion slush fund gifted to it by a far-right billion their. that put it into the hands of a guy named leonard leo who i talked about here on the floor before who is the orchestrator of the scheme capture the supreme court and put it into special interest hands. his reward for his success in that project was this $1.6 billion slush fund that he now controls and he controls it through that utah 501(c)(4) pop-up called the marble freedom trust. and the guy who delivered that money into the marble freedom trust was also famous for his support for the heartland institute which is really just

an epic climate denial crowd to the point where one of their more notorious acts was to put up a billboard equating climate scientists to the unabomber. that is the quality of the debate about climate change that the heartland institute brought, and the billionaire who's teed up marble freedom trust was the prime backer of all of that and indeed had his cfo go on the board of heartland institute, try to keep the thing afloat so that it could be moderately well managed and continue to do its great work of build boards that compared the climate scientists -- billboards that compared climate scientists to the unabomber. so that's what we're at. these guys are deep into this anti-esg push. the dark money operation that i talk about on the floor all the time is behind this esg thing just the way it's behind the capture the court, just the way it's behind the whole climate denial operation that's stymied

progress on climate in this building. a few billion dollars here and there in politics turns out to deliver a lot. and the fossil fuel industry desperately wants to stop people who have fiduciary obligations to tell the truth about climate risk to their clients, to the people who they have that fiduciary risk to, and this is the pitch to do that. so that there's a legal hook to stop people from meeting their fiduciary obligations by disclosing real life actual climate risk now that it is so clear and so immediate that it's now obliged to be disclosed for due diligence. so let us vote no on h.j. res. 30 and let's do more than that let's call this out as a phony op. this is a scheme run by the fossil fuel industry to try to solve the problem it has that its emissions problems are so-so real that fiduciaries have to address it. that's the problem. and a fake operation funded by billions of dollars in dark money through all these slimy

corporations and entities that don't disclose who their real donors are and through all these political operatives that get their funding from the fossil fuel industry, that is not something we want to encourage in this country. we have enough of the public not being listened to, in this case actual customers, actual clients are not being listened to because of this pressure. let's call it out. let's put an end to it. this is not healthy. this is something rotten in denmark. and so with that i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator in virginia. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i rise today in joining my other colleagues organized by my friend, the senator from hawaii, to ask my

colleagues to vote against the resolution which i think we'll be taking up literally in the next ten minutes, which would strip away a commonsense department of labor rule that simply provides fiduciaries. remember who we're talking about, fiduciaries, people who are responsible under erisa plans to think about their beneficiaries over the long term. we are trying to make sure that those fiduciaries who are charged with maintaining retirement plans with the ability to adequately account for environmental, social, and governance factors. i know some of my colleagues have come on the floor to say this is an attempt by the department of labor to somehow mandate the retirement investments of hardworking americans. nothing could be further from the truth. the truth is we look at profit and loss, we look at cash reserves, we look at financial

accounting. but the idea that environmental, social, and governance factors can't even be looked at is a interference in the business cycle that really goes beyond the pale. i am often regarded -- i have to acknowledge this, madam president -- in my caucus as sometimes being the member who's got the most experience with capitalism, the most experience with business. and i absolutely believe in our system, there's nothing better than the idea that today -- and i'm going to copy some of the comments that have been made -- but the idea that today for a lot of folks who have never been able to read a balance sheet are going to come in and tell paid fiduciaries what they consider or what they can't consider in terms of the long-term economic returns for their beneficiaries.

i wonder if things have gotten a little topsy-turvy here. i can imagine if some people are saying we need to make sure we have this rule in place or overrule this rule, put this binding in place if you're talking about day traders or talking about a hedge fund that only looks at the next quarter's results, the kind of short-term capitalism that too often i think is eating at the great core of our system. but if we're going to look at long-term returns, we ought to take and have to take into consideration factors, in many cases factors that may not have been as relevant 30, 50, 70 years ago. somehow we're going to say we can't look at those. unfortunately my colleagues across the aisle have decided to take away a useful term, universal set of analysis, something that be asked for by these pefdz, by these -- by these pension funds and by these

beneficiaries. 75 years ago, if you look at the fortune 500 and the companies that were involved in that fortune 500, about roughly 75% to 80% of these companies' assets were tangible assets. what does that mean? it means it was their plant, it was their equipment, it was their machinery. fast forward, and a lot of this is due to great innovation in the technology field, those same fortune 500 companies which are dramatically different than the companies named 60, 70 years ago, you look at their balance sheet today, 75%, 80% of their assets are intangible assets. what are intangible assets? intangible assets are things like intellectual property, and that is coming about from a healthy workforce. but more than anything else, it is the men and women who work at these firms and virtually every ceo i've heard from in the last ten years have said my biggest

asset is my workforce. and the idea that somehow because esg is not just e. it is also s, and that falls into workforce, the idea that somehow a pension fund can't look at workforce retention, workforce quality, workforce characteristics as a measure of what they want to invest in, to me is a little whacky. let me actually call on a reference sort person who i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge, and that was president trump's chairman of the sec, securities and exchange commission, jay clayton, who i had a very good working relationship with. he said that human capital dispoe sures can and should and form investment decisions. our current requirements date

back to when companies relied on plants for capital. today human capital is essential for many companies albeit in different ways. under mr. trump's sec, there was a rule making process started to make sure that human capital components can be an appropriate focus of reviews particularly for companies and entities that want to invest for the long term. i'm concerned that this approach that we're taking today might indirectly preclude those fiduciaries who represent pension funds, long-term investors, are no longer going to be able to actually look at this critical criteria around human capital. now the other thing is the department of labor rule, and i know a lot of my colleagues have spoken to this, talk about, well, what about the

environment. i think we all would recognize, or most of us recognize the fact that climate change is real and poses a rapidly growing threat to the long-term feasibility of investments made on behalf of hardworking americans. while this rule, this department of labor rule won't direct our armed forces, i think it's really important to understand that the ffrdc's, the federally funded research and development corporations, the rands, miters, cna's, which does naval work and analysis, federally funded, if we're going to apply these same kind of department of labor prohibitions on our armed forces, we couldn't allow the cna to look at the long-term effects on the navy. and i don't want to give away a secret here, but they have been looking at this issue for over 20 years. they couldn't make those kind of predictions about what the effect of sea level rise would

have on our navy. i tell you, we're blessed in the commonwealth of virginia to have the world's largest navy base in norfolk, and i can assure you virtually every year or every other year we have to raise the piers, literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars to raise the piers to make sure that navy base can still be utilized. if it's a smart enough, good enough requirement that the navy and our armed forces are looking at the e of esg, why would we preclude the private sector from doing that? i think the department of labor's rule on esg is both practical and necessary. i think those funds who choose not to abide by it, that's their right. that's what capitalism is all about, making choices. but the notion that we're going to somehow come in and pose --

oppose requirements on the markets and take away long-term investors' ability to consider human capital, consider the effects of climate change, and i've not even touched, i know we're going to have to go to a vote on issues around corporate governance all which can lead to longer term better returns, if this was a rule about day traders and quarter to quarter hedge fund folks, i might get it. but in terms of protecting the long-term value creation in long-term sustainable capitalism, i think this effort today is a sadly misses the mark afford -- and will do a great deal of damage. i urge my colleagues when the vote comes to vote against the cna. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum call -- of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. well, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, 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 free markets, they of small government, the party opposed to projecting political debt ideology

ideology -- today our republican friends are making an effort to limit free market choice and reject hard-right ideology into private secretary over 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. 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 rule republican state legislatures are trying to punish managers who dare consider on their own

volition esg. note, mr. president, i said may not must when describing the rule. because the rule the dol 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. the hard right has made a lot of noise trying to make esg their dirty little acronym. this is about wokeness, that this is a cult, that it's some grave intrusion into finance. it's 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 investors can make decisions that decreases risks while increasing returns. in fact, more than 90% of snp companies already publish esg reports today, so none of this is new. it's 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 imposed by an increasingly vol tire climate if -- volatile climate if they can get a return on their investments. why shouldn't they -- an even better question is this. why are republicans go 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 private sector do its work. withbut their obsession of eliminating esg would do the opposite, forcing their own views down the throats of every company 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've long preached and

get out of the way. i thank my democratic colleagues who are joining us in the opposition to this measure, and i yield the floor and call the question. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for a third time. the clerk: h.j. res. 30, providing for congressional disapproval united states code of the rules submitted by the department of labor relating to prudence and loyalty in exercising planned investments. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are -- on this vote are 50, the nays are 46, and the joint resolution is passed. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session -- will resume executive session, not legislative session, and the the clerk willl report. the presiding officer: cloture the clerk: cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the calendar number 39, james edward simmons, jr., of california, to be united states district judge for the southern district of

california, signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of james edward simmons jr., of california, to be united states district judge for the southern district of california shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote: blal vote:

vote:

vote: .

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51, the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. james edward simmons, jr. of california to be united states

district district judge for the southern district of california.

test.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, yesterday was an interesting day for me personally, but it was an interesting day more importantly

in the history of the united states when it comes to the equal rights amendment. the equal rights amendment was first introduced in 1923, 100 years ago -- 100 years ago, and proposed by a leader named dr. alice paul. at the time she had just won an important victory. she and her fellow suffrages led successfully the campaign to give women the right to vote in the united states. despite this monumental achievement, dr. paul recognized that just the right to vote was not enough for gender equality, but it was the right starting point. so she devoted the remaining years of her life to enshrining gender equality in every facet of american life, and particularly in the constitution

with the equal rights amendment. sadly dr. paul and her fellow suffrages passed away long before they could see the era become the law of the land. in a new ren ration of activists who are propelling the movement of equality forward. now the personal side of this relates to to the fact when i graduated from law school in 1969, i went to work for the lieutenant govern governor of i, and one of my first assignments in the illinois state senate was to work for the passage of the equal rights amendment in the state of illinois. the road to ratification has been long and winding. i continue to be amazed by the proposal. 50 years ago it really came down to some very basic arguments and the leading argument against the equal rights amendment was that men and women would have to

share public restrooms. when i say that, you think, wait a minute. you want it enshrined in the constitution the constitutional rights of more than half of the americans living in america and the argument came down to a debate over the future of public restrooms. i have to tell you it had more to do with it than anything else. i heard that argument over and over and over again. the e.r.a. is a rallying cry for americans young and poald for a good -- old for a good reason. it would ensure our nation lived up to the promise of real equality and frankly, it's a principle that should be enshrined in the constitution. 38 states have ratified the equal rights amendment. the most recent virginia in 2020. 38 is the exact number needed to

certify an amendment to the constitution. the only thing standing in the way of an equal rights amendment is an arbitrary deadline that congress included in the preamble -- let me underline the three words, the preamble in this amendment as it passed in 1972, clarifying that this was not controlling, but simply in the preamble is what the current controversy is about. during yesterday's hearing on the e.r.a., we heard from several witnesses, including my home state governor, a young woman whose name is thursday williams, a senior at trinity college in connecticut. she spoke on behalf of a lot of young people. she's a college senior. her compelling testimony was a testament to the value of her voice in the conversation. after graduating college,

ms. williams plans to become an attorney. she said i fell in love with the united states constitution in high school. you don't hear that very often, do you? she said, quote, what i love the most about the constitution is how brilliantly it was designed to adapt to the changing needs of its people. she argued that today the american people deserve a constitution that guarantees equality rashedless of -- regardless of sex, a constitution we can use as a tool to fight discrimination. she asked members of the committee, if we continue to hold back more than half of the people in america from accessing equal opportunity, what does that say about us as a country? how can we be the beacon of freedom and democracy we claim to be if we don't claim that sex discrimination contradicts the american dream? this young college student is pretty smart as far as i'm concerned many she knew exactly the right question to ask. and generations of americans

have been waiting for us in congress to protect their fundamental rights. congress approved the e.r.a. 50 years ago, but in doing so we imposed that arbitrary time limit for ratification, that's why our hearing yesterday was so important. the members of the committee were not merely discussing the importance of the e.r.a., we were urging our colleagues to join us in passing it. this joint resolution has bipartisan support in both chambers, and i want to salute senator murkowski, of alaska, for joining us in cosponsoring with ben cardin this effort. we can't wait any longer. i listened to the arguments about opposing the equal rights amendment in this year 2023. 50 years ago the argument was we can't see how we're going to resolve public restrooms. now the argument was raised by

one of the witnesses called by the republicans was we're worried about the impact that an equal rights amendment would have on the future of field hockey. field hockey. the woman who testified representing one of the koch industry entities that have been created to do politicking said she couldn't explain to her daughter or guarantee to her that there wouldn't be some clash as to whether men to play on her field hockey team. i would say to her, with all due respect, and i've been a parent myself, still am, that it's time to sit down and talk to your daughter about the basics and the basics are a constitutional guarantee of her rights for the rest of her natural life, not the next field hockey game. there is more at stake here and it probably relates less to her because of who she is and her

family than it does to all the other women whose lives would be improved by the passage of the equal rights amendment. but that's where we stand today. there's no room for uncertainty when it comes to protecting equal rights under the law. that was a lesson that was driven home last year when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. for the first time in history -- for the first time in the history of the united states of america, the supreme court ripped away a constitutional right from the american people. that's never, never happened before. and one of the supreme court justices, by name clarence thomas, made it clear this was just the beginning. he was going to call into question a lot of fundamental constitutional rights like the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to family planning. so now members of the senate have to making a decision in our

time. what kind of america do we want for our granddaughters and daughters? a country in which their fundamental rights are safe and secure or one in which the constitution still -- still, 100 years after we started, fails to recognize the fundamental equality on the basis of sex? i think the hearing was very clear and i think the issue is very clear. i know what i want to be able to explain to my little granddaughter, she is only 3 and a half now, but i hope to one day sit down and have a serious conversation with her. and i want to tell her that during the course of my her life that her constitutional rights were at issue and that we did the right thing for her and her daughter and her daughter's daughter and everyone in america with guaranteeing quality. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the next statement be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. durbin: i want to tell you about a young law student, lala murphy, she was 3 when her brother brian was killed, her older sitter jessica was only 5. it was a day she was too little to comprehend, but for americans old enough, it is a day we'll never forget. 9/11. lala grew up in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks. she wrote me a powerful letter about the failure of this country to deliver justice. i quote her, my father, brian murphy, worked on the 105th floor of the american trade center, he was killed when the plane hit the north tower, 22 years and four presidents later there's been no accountability for his death nor the deaths of nearly 3,000 other americans that day. lala and nearly 3,000 other

families have been waiting for justice for 9/11 for almost 20 years. in those two decades, she has grown from a toddler to a law student. but the commission trial against the nine codefendants in guantanamo has never even started. 22 years later. let me repeat that. more than two decades after the attacks, the 9/11 trial has never even started. in her words, she said the parties are no closer to a trial date than when the hearings began in 2012, more than a decade ago. in the meantime many family members died, others have given up hope .this they don't know in this case will ever end in her lifetime. lala traveled to guantanamo to wash the military commission proceedings and came away frustrated, and in her words, ashamed. frustrated at the slow pace and makeshift nature of the

proceedings, ashamed to learn how the defendants were actually tortured by her own government. she recognizes that because of this history real justice is now unattainable. by setting up ad hoc military commissions rather than trusting our courts, by torturing detainees rather than securing evidence lawfully, we have made true justice for families like lala's nearly impossible. if trials are still going on 20 years after the event, how many years do you think the actual trial would take? how many years of appeal would then follow? what are the chances that prosecutors could even convict men who were tortured at our hands for years and if they did, what are the chances those convictions would be upheld? how many family members would be alive to see final judgments of guilt? if they ever come.

this is the only way to have a justice for the families. the biden administration should step up to the plate, deliver the justice that three previous administrations have failed to provide. in lala's words, the military commissions have failed to provide justice for 9/11 families. plea deals are a way out. the only way out maybe, but the thing that's standing in the way is political will. she says it's time for that to change. she's not alone in recognizing the guilty pleas are the only hope for justice. on the morning of 9/11, former bush administration solicitor sr general ted olsen went to the justice department while her wife barbara headed to dulles airport for a flight to los angeles. she delayed her departure by a day so she 0 could wake up with

her husband on his birthday. after the two planes hit the world trade center towers, he turned to his wife's safety. she was calling from the back of the airplane to tell him that her plane had been hijacked. she wanted -- she asked what she could tell the captain and then silence. at 9:37 a.m., the flight crashed into the pentagon killing ought 64 people on board and 125 people in the pentagon. barbara was one of those victims. like leila, ted olson is still awaiting justice. but today he believes true justice seems unattainable. by coincidence i ran into him last night at a reception on capitol hill and i introduced myself to him and said i was going to talk about his statement and his wife on the

floor. and he thanked me for it. he said it's time for the american people to hear this straight from those of us who were directly impacted by 9/11. in a powerful column earlier this month, mr. olson wrote, and i quote him, i now understand that commissions were doomed from the start. and he said we ■tried topursue justice expeditiously in a new, untested legal system. it didn't work. the established legal system of the united states would have been capable of rendering a verdict in those difficult cases, but we didn't trust america's tried and true courts. he concluded and i quote, nothing will bring back the thousands of lives so cruelly taken on that september day, but we must face reality and bring this process to an end. the american legal system must move on by closing the book on military commissions and securing guilty pleas. in the fearful days after 9/11,

our nation's leaders made a fateful decision to forsake our most trusted institutions and betray our cherished values. the decision to open guantanomo in a rush for vengeance and swift justice instead robbed the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones one of their true rights to true justice. it's time to salvage what justice we can by bringing this commission case -- those commission indications to an end. we must also bring an end to the shameful, shameful indefinite detention of detainees who have never been charged with a crime. more than two decades after the incident on 9/11, these detainees have never been charged with any crime. 18 of the 32 remaining detainees have never been charged with any crime and have been unanimously cleared for release. 18. by our national security and military leadership. yet they continue to be detained indefinitely. day after day, year after year

for more than two decades. the administration must redouble its effort to transfer the men who have been cleared for release or serve their sentences. the recent transfer of three long-time detainees were steps forward but the administration needs to pick up the pace. men who have served their time or been cleared for release should not be sitting in guantanamo. ends these abuses is a moral and national security imper tif. guantanomo bay continues to serve the interests of america's worst enemies. terrorist groups point to the history of torture and indefinite detention in their propaganda and recruitment videos. autocrats point to guantanamo to justify their own human rights abuses. adding insult to injury, this moral stain on our nation and national security liability continues to be funded by american taxpayers. the cost of guantanamo is as mommic -- astronomic.

we spend more than $540 million each year to keep guantanamo open for just 32 detainees. let me repeat that. $540 million a year in taxpayers' money to keep guantanamo open for 32 detainees. that's nearly $17 million a year for each detainee. it's an outrage. and 18 of those men have been cleared for release for a long period. we must not forget that guantanamo is set up to be outside the reach of the law, outside the reach the constitution, outside the reach of the concept of habeas corpus, outside the reach of due process and outside the reach of geneva conventions. that's why it was chosen. we must not forget the detainees were held incommunicado and actually tortured at guantanamo. we must not forget that more than half the men still there continue to be detained indefinitely without any charge

or any trial. in america we must stand for something better than that. guantanamo bay sadly is a historic stain on america's long pursuit of the cause of justice. we have a responsibility to release detainees who never have been charged with a crime and have served their time, period. and we have a responsibility to deliver what little justice we can, we still can to the victims of 9/11 and their families. let's do what we must -- what must be done. let's finally salvage a small measure of justice and dignity for leila, for ted olson, and for everyone else who lost a loved one on that terrible day. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, here i am again with my trusted battered chart by my side. this time here to talk about the looming costs and economic risks of climate upheaval. almost exactly five years ago i sent around a binder about this thick to all of my senate colleagues in which i compiled some of the most compelling warnings about the looming climate economic crisis. i have just recently updated it

and shared it with all the budget committee members. it's now more like this thick as warnings just keep piling up. these warnings come from central bankers, economists, asset managers insurance companies, investment banks, credit rating agencies and leading management consultantses, folks with a lot of credibility when it comes to economics, finance, corporate risk, and their effect on government spending and revenues. folks who often have a fiduciary obligation to get this right. the budget committee has started to dig into these warnings. we've just held the first two of a series of hearings on climate impacts to our federal budget. our second hearing held earlier

today explored warnings of crashes in coastal property values amid rising seas and more powerful storms. one of our witnesses was kate mishaud, the town manager of warren, rhode island. next time we'll spell rhode island correctly. warren is the smallest town in the smallest county of our small estate. there like many small coastal towns all around the country in georgia and elsewhere, the problems are real and they are immediate. she testified that some homes in warren have seen their value drop by one-third because of flood risk. and sea level rise is projected to permanently flood some coastal portions of warren over the next decade. this is mapping that is done by

the state of rhode island that shows the projected flooding zone of warren and all of these are existing buildings and homes that will be inundated. warren is not alone. still low's real estate -- zillow's real estate database has identified over 4800 homes in rhode island that would be under water with a projected 6 feet of sea level rise, which is projected for rhode island. that's nearly $3 billion in home values. and rhode island is not alone. the u.s. has nearly 13,000 miles of coastline, 40% of our population lives along the coast. more than a trillion dollars worth of residential and commercial real estate is coastal. and for most american households, their greatest wealth is their home.

first street foundation whose ceo testified at thorngz's hearing -- this morning's hearing examines floods. it shows increasing risk to residential properties over the next 30 years. and rhode island does its own flood projections and they show similar risks. just two weeks ago a study found real estate exposed to flood risks was overvalued, i.e., the flood risk had not yet been taken into account by up to a staggering $237 billion with the worst property overvaluations along coasts, and of course florida with all of its coasts is the prime liability. the study warns that as a result, coastal real estate values may plummet, and that can

cascade into systemic risks for the mortgage market. freddie mac, the mortgage giant, has made very similar warnings about coastal property values. their former chief economist who also testified at this morning's hearing has said, and i'm quoting him here, the economic losses and social disruption are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and great recession. anybody who was here through the 2008 housing crisis and the recession that followed knows how sobering that warning is, and it comes from that collapse in coastal property values triggered by difficulty in getting mortgage insurance with a 30-year lead time, collapse in values and then cascading out

into the rest of the economy. sea levels are rising, and the rate is accelerating. that's a scientific fact. as homes and businesses in coastal communities face more frequent sunny day flooding and wetter and more violent ocean storms, more homes will be under water both literally and figuratively. insurance will become more expensive and harder to find. mortgages depend on insurance so lending will suffer. coastal communities will become harder places for live and work and real estate values and local tax bases will decline. moodies is already looking at local municipal bonds in this light. in emergencies, coastal communities will turn to the federal government for financial assistance. federal flood insurance costs will rise. for home mortgages, banks and

insurance companies will look ahead 30 years so long before the ocean lapse at physical doorsteps, those markets will be hit and the effect in real estate markets across the country will bring harsh consequences for families and their financial stability. i use the term systemic risk earlier. systemic risk is a bland term used by economists. what it refers to is anything but bland. it refers to the massively destabilizing events that can cascade out and trigger general economic recession. think of the mortgage crisis in 2008. 20% of household wealth was wiped out in two years. unemployment soared and government revenues reduced for a decade. there is broad concern here about deficits.

well, deficits tripled as a result of that 2008 shock. according to cbo, revenues fell by $4.4 trillion and projected spending rose by $800 billion to fund the recovery for a net debt increase total of over $5 trillion from that event. well, we should see the writing on the wall when it comes to climate risk. at our first hearing, dr. mark carney, who has been governor, their phrase for ceo, of the bank of england and of the bank of canada, gave us the scale of the risk. he testified that, and i'm quoting him here, over the balance of the century, climate change could reduce the level of global gdp per capita by 10% to 20%, without efforts to limit warming. that would be the equivalent of a decade of no economic growth.

end quote. bob litterman, an economist who spent more than two decades managing risk for goldman sachs as its chief risk officer, now chair of the climate-related market risk subcommittee at the u.s. commodities futures trading commission testified, quoting here, we are on track for somewhere between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees of warming by 2200, which would result in gdp losses of 2.4 and 3%. implying the possibility of long-term negative growth as climate change worsens. end quote. this is not a future problem. some of these warned-of risks are already upon us. already, climate-related natural disasters increase federal spending on disaster assistance,

flood insurance, crop insurance, and other programs. already extreme heat and drought force western farmers to leave land unplanted and reduce livestock herds. droughts around the world already hit cotton production, raising costs on products like medical gauze and cloth diapers. insurance prices are already through the roof. in florida and louisiana, hammered by increasingly violent hurricanes, and out west, under siege from more intense and frequent wildfires. this will certainly get worse, much worse particularly if warming exceeds 1.5 degrees celsius. we are on a bad trajectory. think of coastal cities flooded with water and southwest cities that can't get water. think of of a salt lake that is

virtually gone and blowing dust over salt lake city. deloitte, the management consulting firm, predicts the differential between being responsible and reckless about climate could sum to more than $220 trillion globally between now and 2070. we use big numbers around here a lot. a $220 trillion swing in the global economy is massive, and deloitte is not exactly a green outfit. there is some good news here. by acting now, we can minimize the damage and costs to household, businesses and our economy, and there are huge economic opportunities from investing in climate action. the inflation reduction act invested $370 billion to create good-paying jobs and new economic opportunities. it will lower energy costs for

families and small businesses, and accelerate the transition to clean energy. looking ahead, a well-designed carbon border adjustment, an idea which has bipartisan support, would significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions in the u.s. and overseas. and boost american heavy industry against our chinese competitors. and reshore american manufacturing jobs lost in past decades. let me close on tipping points. tipping points are threshold that change the trajectory of harm, potentially dramatically. one example is the tipping point where warming will cause the greenland ice sheet to collapse and melt. we don't know exactly where that

threshold lies. that is one of the dangers of our climate experiment. but science suggests it's between 1.5 and two degrees celsius of warming. well, folks, we've already warmed 1.1 degrees. so the distance to 1.5 or two degrees is pretty short. if we lose the greenland ice sheet, it's 22 feet of sea level rise. so we do well to avoid these tipping points, to avoid the systemic economic risks, to behave prudently and responsibly, and to take advantage of a stronger and more stable clean energy economy that beck -- that beckons. it is long past, mr. president,

time to wake up. i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, on february 2, i called on japanese prime minister kishida to transfer u.s. navy lieutenant ridge alconeas back to u.s. custody, no later than midnight on february 28. i was explicit that i had a very public discussion about the u.s.-japan relationship, and in particular the u.s.-japan status of forces agreement would ensue if lieutenant alconis were not back in u.s. custody by that date. now, it's now march 2, 2023. and it's about 6:20 p.m. and ridge alconis is not only not back in u.s. custody, he's not only not on u.s. soil, he's

still languishing in a japanese prison. so mr. president, let's have a frank discussion about our status of forces agreement with japan, because we've waited long enough. ridge alconis waited long enough. and his wife, brittany, has waited long enough, their children have waited long enough, all three of them. we're done waiting. the japanese government has unjustly incarcerated lieutenant alconis for too long. i traveled to tokyo in august to meet with japanese foreign minister hiashi, where he made an unequivocal commitment to expedite the council of europe prisoner transfer once the u.s. paperwork was completed. and it was understood at the time that would be in a matter of days or weeks, not months or years. can lieutenant alconis felt comfortable signing off on the transfer paperwork because of

foreign minister hiashi's commitment. with this understanding, the u.s. department of justice completed the necessary paperwork in less than two weeks. japan has been sitting on that request ever since then, for months and months and months. however, the japanese government tried to renege on its promise by having a junior member of the japanese embassy staff in washington reach out to a member of my staff to deny that foreign minister hiashi had ever made such a commitment. allow me, not a member of my staff, to correct the record. foreign minister hiashi, you did make that commitment to me. i have not forgotten, and i know you haven't either. this isn't too much to ask of any country, let alone one on which we spent billions of dollars, billions of dollars a year to defend.

a council of europe transfer is not an extraordinary request. on the contrary. these kinds of requests are routine. situations like this one are the very reason we have a prisoner transfer process in the first place. the stated purpose for the council of europe treaty is to facilitate the rehabilitation of it the transferred offenders and to relieve some of the administration and diplomatic issues that arise with the incarceration of foreign nationals. now, look, to be very clear, we're not even asking for ridge to be released from custody, for him to just be told that his sentence is no longer intact. we're simply asking he be transferred to u.s. custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence. these transfers happen all the time. it makes little sense that we'd allow those tasked with

defending the constitution and its enshrined principles to be treated so poorly by an allied nation, to be subjected to laws so draconian that they're unrecognizable to the principles of justice or our -- that our sphrimples swear to defend. -- our service members swear to defend. when we swear that, it represents an enduring commitment to individual liberty, a spirit that says no matter who we are, where we came from, or what religion, if any, we practice, we enjoy liberty that is self-evident because it is god-given. our armed forces stand ready to protect not only the safety and sovereignty of the united states, but the safety and sovereignty of our friends, like japan, who enjoyed over $20 billion in u.s. military aid over the last five years.

and yet they can't keep their promise to facilitate a routine prisoner transfer? i cannot and will not accept that. not now, not ever. i don't think the american people can accept that, either. in fact, i know they can't, nor should they. i don't think they'd be okay knowing we spend billions of dollars to defend a country, when our status of forces agreement with that country is so unfavorable to our troops. i don't think they'd be okay sending 55,000 of their sons and daughters to support an allied country where they won't have the most basic legal rights. i'm certainly not. japan isn't either. to illustrate, under the terms of the japan jabu -- djabuti, which is the only country where japan has a foreign base,

japanese servicemembers are immune from prosecution, completely immune. why should japan be allowed to treat u.s. forces any less favorably than japanese forces are treated by djibouti? look, i want to be very clear here. jeaps japan has a good thing going. it doesn't get much better than the deal they've got going. i don't know why they'd want to jeopardize that. but patience in washington has grown thin, and the japanese government has vastly underestimated the intensity of bipartisan support for lieutenant alconis in congress, at every level of government, including a commitment from president biden, a recent commitment from president biden himself, to brittany alconis, saying, quote, i promise you, we're not giving up, okay? president biden is right. he said that with good reason, and he said that not only as

president of the united states, but also as a red-blooded american who cares about this country. himself a father of a decorated, respected u.s. military officer. we're not giving up. this isn't going away. we're not just going to keep quiet. and the longer ridge remains in japanese custody, the louder we will get. if the japanese government can't respect our servicemembers, and we can't trust them to uphold their commitments, then we're long overdue for a renegotiation of the status of forces agreement between our two nations. we must do so to protect our servicemembers, especially if they're stationed in a country with a justice system as draconian as japan's. in japanese criminal justice, interrogation is the primary means police and prosecutors use to obtain confessions.

but these are no ordinary intergaixes. not by our standards -- are no ordinary intergangses, not by our standards. typically, they last more than 20 hours. and bribery interrogations average 130 hours. the night that lieutenant alconis was involved in that tragic accident, rather than being taken to a hospital, he was placed in solitary confinement for 26 days. during that time he was denied access to legal counsel, denied access to an adequate translator, denied proper medical care, despite the fact that he had just been in a serious accident, and was subjected to intense interrogation tactics, at all hours of the night. he was subjected to bright lights, causing sleep

deprivation and coerced into signing complex written documents written in japanese works no interpreter available, just to have the chance at getting bail. it was later discovered that japanese authorities manipulated lieutenant alconis' forced statement. not uncommon in japan, where 26% of prosecutors there have admitted in an anonymous survey to falsifying suspects' statements. he was told not to contest the falsified documents, as the japanese court would perceive this as a lack of remorse. given the unfair treatment of one of our best and brightest, we as a congress should take every precaution to ensure that our servicemembers are never, ever treated this way again. i'm not exaggerating. the u.n. human rights council has long criticized japan's

justice system for unnecessarily long pre-indictment detention periods, denial of lawyers during interrogations and questionable interrogation tactics, to put it mildly. often these practices lead to false confessions and have resulted in japan's legal system being known as, quote-unquote, hostage justice, appropriately so. don't believe me? well, the criminal conviction rate in japan is 99%. we have status of forces agreements. we establish frameworks under which u.s. military personnel operate in foreign countries and how domestic laws of foreign jurisdictions apply to u.s. military personnel in those countries. at a minimum, any agreement between the united states and a foreign country should provide adequate legal protections for american servicemembers.

this means access to legal counsel. it means access to a competent interpreter, and it means access to medical treatment throughout the legal process. these are basic rights afforded in modern and fair justice systems, but not in japan. it is not too much to ask, mr. president, for a renegotiation of our sofa with japan. look, similar concerns once existed in the republic of korea. however, we success florida -- successfully implemented much-needed improvements to include a u.s. representative to be present during any interview or interrogation, a lawyer to be present at any time the request of a servicemember so requires it or dependent during the

interviews and interrogations as well as a competent interpreter. we need these same changes to be made in the u.s.-japan s0. fa. -- sofa. look, i'm sure, i'm certain that there are many who wish that i weren't giving this speech. i've been told that it just isn't worth risking the relationship we have with a strategic partner over a single american. mr. president, they're wrong. the latin term unis pro -- means one for all, all for one. the concept is predicted multiple times in the bible. it can be found in the works of shakespeare and made popular by alexander dumas in his 1844 novel "the three musketeers.

requestings "our military personnel and their families sacrifice their blood, sweat certification and treasure so that all of us might enjoy the blessings of liberty that generations of americans fought and died to protect. they truly embody all for one and one for all. but what does it say about us if we're collectively unwilling to stand up for the rights of the one? we cannot expect people to stand up for their country if their country does not stand up for them. thank you, mr. president. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it shouldn't take a train derailment for elected officials to put partisanship aside and

work together for the people we serve, not work for corporations like norfolk southern. that's why this morning i introduced bipartisan legislation with senator advance -- senator vance and my colleague, senator rubio from florida, senator casey, longtime friend, democrat from pennsylvania, senator fetterman, also a freshman who's been here a couple months from pennsylvania, and senator hawley from missouri to make trains savers and they go through place safer. now ohioans, georgia has seen -- the presiding officer, the senior senator from georgia has seen in his state, ohioans have seen these rail crashes, thee derailments in the last four months in east palestine, the best known one because the damage was greatest, but also

sandusky, on lake erie, the latest body of fresh water in the world, the great lakes, on the stuben river, the two greatest sources of water that our state has, and drinking water and all kinds of things, recreation for all kinds of people. we've seen -- all three of these communities are paying a price. over the past month i've been to east palestine multiple times talking with residents, the mayor, the fire chief, business owners, parents. i've heard their fears for what this means for their town, for their futures. i met with melissa smith who runs a company -- a candle making company -- i learned something from her and my wife that the best candles now are made from soy, not from wax. they smell better, they burn cleaner. thank you for acknowledging that. it's best for the environment.

but she owns this candle company she and her daughter run. but she and her husband have a -- about four miles away have 20 -- a small farm, have 25 beef cattle -- i think she said 25. she has regular customers. this isn't some huge stockyard. she has regular customers. these customers who she settle to every year and buy a side of beef or a full side of beef. she is sea getting calls from customers saying, i'm not sure we're going to buy this year. is your beef safe? the i think we need to do everything in our power to make sure an accident like this never happens again and to make those residents, these 4,500 residents of east palestine and the township, unity township around it and east of unity township in western pennsylvania, darlington township, to make sure people's lives return to normal. our bill requires new safety

requirements for trains that carry hazardous materials. governor dewine who served in the senate before he was governor is particularly upset that these trains -- these tanker train cars can come in that are carrying hazardous material but not tell the state or not tell local governments or, more importantly, not tell firefighters and people that are not trained to fight hazmat kinds of fires. the bill would also mean new rules to prevent wheel-bearing failures like we saw in this crash. we know wheel-bearing failures are the number-one mechanical cause of did he railments. this train was more than 150 cars long, more than a mile. it has one locomotive at the front, and then a locomotive about two-thirds of the way or halfway back to help pull the train. there is -- there are only two employees -- there were three this time. two employees and a trainee. but the railroads want there to

be only one human being driving these trains, one human being in a train that's a mile long, 150 cars. so we require at minimum two-person work crews on every train. it is a good first step toward making train and rail lines safer and protecting rail workers. it mean real accountability when accidents happen. it raises the fines that right now are so low they don't even make a dent in the profits of these big companies. just the cost of doing business. and we've seen what happens. dangerous derailments over and over. as i said, three in ohio just in the last few months. norfolk southern's profits have gone up. accidents have gone up. not exactly shocking. they don't care about these communities, the dance they do, as long as they still bring in -- you the damages they do, as long as as they still bring in enough to do stock buybacks. this year they were planning to do several million more buybacks. they backed off after the train

derailment. they have laid off in the last ten years, one-third of their workforce. you know what that means? it means that track inspections by norfolk southern employees are more cursory. they're not as thorough, not as safe, not done as well. they can't be because these workers are so harried and have so much work to do. these -- the rail companies cut costs by cutting workers -- cuttings corners, as i said, cutting workers, leaving crews unsafe. it happens quarter after quarter. all the ways they've cost-of-livings, cut -- all the ways they've cut costs, cut costs. my job -- when i talk about the dignity of work, i understand this -- my job is to fight for those workers, and fight to make sure this never happens again. i'll work with anyone to do this. and i am thrilled that senator vance, my first -- second month in the senate, a republican, we don't agree on the big issues,

but we've listened to the same people and sure as heck agree that we need to do this. i'll work to get these reforms passed, to hold norfolk southern accountable, to make sure they pay for every cent of the cleanup. senator vance and i come from different parities, but we've come together for the people of our state, as i did with other senators. major issues on the big differences but working together for ohio. we've pressed federal officials to take legal action. we've pressed for monitoring of low pension long-term health effects. that's who -- that's how you get things done. it's what we did with senator portman, again and again, we found agreement wherever we could. we got things accomplished. right after senator portman left office -- maybe out of office for two days in january -- he and i and senator mcconnell, who sits at this chair, the republican leader, with governor

dewine, a republican, governor -- the governor of kentucky, a democrat, and the president of the united states, stood at the brent spence bridge, a project we've been work working on for ten years, 3% of gdp crosses over that edmund pettus bridge connecting senator mcconnell's state and cincinnati in my state. we came up with laws to protect ohio workers and ohio businesses like whirlpool, expanding access for opioid addiction, the pact act taking care of veterans who were exposed to those football field-sized burn pits and years later develop a cancer or bronchial illness and they show up at the v.a. and because of the pact act that senator tester, the principal writer, and i, named after on ohioan, the pact act that will save

lives. i'm hopeful we continue that tradition with senator vance. as i told the residents of east palestine, i am here for the long time. i said to the mayor, i'm going to keep calling you on the phone, i'm going to calling the fire chief, i'm going to call melissa smith who owns the candle company. i am not going away until people's lives are back to normal, until norfolk southern is held accountable. when people pack up with a week or two, we're going to be there for the next ten years if that's what it takes to make this right. i hope my colleagues of both parties will show that same commitment as senator vance is saying and senator rubio and senator casey and senator fetterman and senator hawley. join us to get something real done for the people whom we serve.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session understand be a in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i have eight requests for committee to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 619, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to require the director of national intelligence to declassify information relating to the origin of covid-19 and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: i ask that the bill be considered read a third timed and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, march 2. following ago 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, following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the lawless nomination, postcloture. further, mr. president, at -- at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote on confirmation of the lawless nomination, the motion to invoke cloture on the gallagher nomination. at a time to be determined by the majority leader. further senate recess following

the cloture vote on the gallagher nomination until 1:45 and at 1:45 the senate vote on confirmation of the grey nomination. finally if nominations are confirmed during thursday'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. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. 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 senators lankford and cruz. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, i have to tell you this past weekend i stood with the williams family and the shaw family with hundreds of other folks, and i listened to live music in the historic big ten ballroom. that may not mean a lot to a lot of folks in this room, but it's a really big deal in my state in oklahoma to hear live music in the big ten ballroom. let me set the scene for you.

lonnie williams was one of the first african american police officers in tulsa, oklahoma. i've spoken many times to this body about greenwood and about the race massacre that happened on may 31 and june 1 of 1921. we talked at length about it, what happened during that time for what is in all likelihood the worst race massacre in american history. it was in 1921. so for lonnie williams to be one of the first black police officers in tulsa was really a big deal. he served on the police department and opened up several other businesses as his side hustle and then eventually opened up what he would call the big ten ballroom in 1948. it was a venue for black artists to be able to come in because in 1948 a lot of black artists couldn't play in a lot of auditoriums in america, including in my state.

so they would invite these great musicians to be able to come through that they would tour and there was kind of this behind-the-scenes group of venues that was scattered through the country where black artists could perform. and the one that we had in oklahoma was the big ten. it's no simple thing for them to be able to travel because at the time when those black artists were traveling, they couldn't be in a lot of hotels. they couldn't eat in a lot of restaurants. and when they came to greenwood, there were still families that would welcome them in. the williams family, who owned the big ten, their family in fact would host folks. they still tell stories about getting up in the morning and stepping over the temptations sleeping in their living room. and when i talk about artists playing in the big ten, i'm not talking about just any artists in american history. i'm talking about count basie, ella fitzgerald, ike and tina

turner, ray charles, james brown, wilson picket, bb king, fats domino, little richard. i've already mentioned the temptations. interestingly enough, the last place that otis redding played before he died in a plane crash was the big ten ballroom in tulsa, oklahoma. you know why we call it the historic big ten ballroom. that ballroom was the place to be able to get music in north tulsa for decades, and then it closed down in the 1960's. a lot of urban renewal was happening in that area and a lot of things were shifting. the building was used for awhile as a beauty supply warehouse, quite frankly. the roof caved in eventually as they abandoned it, and it sat idol for -- idle for more than two decades, quite frankly, an

eye sore in the neighborhood. but to the williams family and to lots of other folks in north tulsa, when they drove up and down apache they would still see the glory of the big ten and what she could be in the days ahead. but no one took the risk because all that was going to get the big ten back alive was hope and a whole bunchl of money. until dr. lester shaw stood in the parking lot of the big ten and saw it not for what it was, quite frankly, a place where more pigeons lived than anything else, but for what she could be again. in 2007 dr. shaw bought that building, quite frankly, his wife was pretty nervous about it, thinking what in the world. but brenda shaw knows her husband lester well and when he got an idea she knew it must be

from god and it was going to be okay because he's going to be tenacious enough to get it done. dr. shaw and brenda shaw, both doctors now, the two of them for the last 23 committed every second of their spare time to thousands of kids in greenwood. they run a ministry after school called a pocket full of hope. a pocket full of hope teaches arts, music, photography, videoing if i. -- videos. they invest in the lives of students in the area and for the last three years as they have mentored kids in that school -- brace yourself -- they have helped 100% of those kids graduate from high school. not a single one of them hasn't finished high school. they traveled all over the country, including right here to washington, d.c., to be able to perform music, but they never really had a place to perform. they've really never had a place that was their own.

and this location where they have about 350 people a year that come through to be able to to be mentored by pocket players, those that have gone through pocket full of hope in the past and those that are helping lester shaw and his leadership, those folks have made a remarkable difference in the community. dr. shaw in 2007 saw the big ten for what she could be again, and last weekend what she is again. there's live music again at the big ten. i was listening to it last weekend as it came alive, and you couldn't imagine how beautiful the inside of that building is, as the community and different groups have all invested dollars and lots of sweat and blood and tears to be able to bring it back again. and when you drive down apache now, you see the big ten. you see, black history is not

old, ancient history. black history in america and black history in my state is still going on right now, because people like lonnie williams that set a path for my state and my community decades ago, that baton is being picked up by folks like dr. lester shaw, and they're doing remarkable work to help thousands of students. so for me, i was honored to sit and listen to live music at the big ten. and if anybody's traveling through tulsa, i'd encourage you to swing down apache and hear live music in the same place where b.b. king and james brown and ray charles, tina turner and count basie and fats domino sang, the place intended to be able to hear history come alive. by the way, the big ten is not called the big ten anymore.

now they call it the historic big ten. we're living out history right now, and i'm grateful for the williams family and the legacy they've left and what dr. shaw has picked up. god bless them in the work, and we're grateful for what they've done in the past. that, i yield the floor. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to honor the memory of oswaldo paya who would have celebrated his 73rd birthday this week. his memory and his story have been an inspiration to dissidents across the world, and

i'd like to briefly retell it here today. oswaldo was a dissident and democracy activist in cuba, with unrelenting passion and dedication. he was someone who stood up against the castro regime at very direct risk to his own life. he had incredible courage. he spoke up for human rights. he spoke up for free speech. he spoke up for democracy. and 11 years ago oswaldo paya was murdered. on july 22, 2012, paya left his house with three other people to go visit friends. from the start of their journey, their car was followed. on the way, the cuban police drove paya's car off the road

and killed him. the crash is widely believed to have been orchestrated by the castro regime. paya had long been a thorn in the side of the castros, even from a young age. he was the only person at his school who had refused to join the communist youth. as a teenager, he publicly opposed the communist crackdown on protestors in czechoslovakia, who were righting for freedom. and he was punished with three years in prison. paya went on to found the varella project, which sought a referendum on cuba's communist system. their demands were simple -- democrat krattic government, --

democratic government, freedom of liberty, and freedom of ex ex expression and freedom to start businesses. he got 11,000 signatures to petition the government to hold a referendum and eventually 20,000 people supported the referendum. 20,000 people risked their lives by standing with oswaldo paya for freedom. but the cuban government refused to hold a referendum. paya's fight for freedom made him a target repeatedly of the communist party in cuba. they harassed him, tried to intimidate him, and arrested him numerous times. and in 2012 they killed him. paya's friend and the driver of the car said that when he awoke after the crash, he was confronted at the hospital by a

government operative and the hospital was flooded with uniform military personnel. under extreme duress, drugged, and threatened with death by government officials, he signed a confession that directly contradicted what he knew to be true, that the communist regime had just murdered oswaldo paya. i've met multiple times with oswaldo paya's daughter, rosa maria, who is an incredible, courageous, powerful leader in her own right, and we've discussed ways we can continue her father's fight for justice in cuba. one of the things i've done is i've filed legislation to rename the street in front of the cuban embassy in washington, d.c. oswaldo paya oswaldo paya way.

renaming the street in front of the cuban embassy would send a powerful message to the communist regime. during the cold war, president reagan followed this very same strategy. he renamed the street in front of the embassy, the soviet embassy sakarov plaza. it was part of a broader strategy to call out the evil regime. my strategy is the same here. some people may think a street name is not that big a deal, but think about it for a moment. if you change a street name it means anyone who wants to write to the cuban embassy will have to write oswaldo paya's name. or if you need to go there, you'll have to look up the address and see the same.

tyranny exists in darkness! oppressive regimes are terrified by dissidents. members of the cuban government who deal with the embassy will have to acknowledge that paya existed and that this hero, who was wrongfully murdered, was real. they will have to say his name. there is power in saying his name. i want to tell you another story that illustrates just how powerful this reflaming strategy can be -- this renaming strategy can be. several years ago i introduced legislation to rename the street in front of the chinese embassy in washington, d.c. lu xiao bao plaza. this was a peace advocate in china, wrongfully imprisoned

there. my bill passed the united states senate 100-0. every senator, republican and democrat, agreed with that bill. sadly, even though it was a democrat senate at the time, the republican house failed to take up the bill, so it didn't pass into law. but here's an epilogue to that story -- the beginning of the trump administration in 2017 i was having breakfast with rex tillerson, the new secretary of state. we were at foggy bottom, at the state department. we're talking about china at one point, he said he had just had a meeting with his counterpart, the foreign minister of china. he said the foreign minister came out and said the chinese communist government has three top priorities in foreign policy, and rex kind of shook his head. he said ted, it's the damnest thing. one of their top three

priorities is to prevent your bill to rename the street in front of their embassy from passing. i'll tell you what i told rex that morning. at the time, he had passed away and never collected the over $1 million he was entitled to for the nobel peace price, but his widow was still in china. china would not let her go. i said to rex, go back to china and tell them the following, if they release liu xiao and let her go, i will stop pressing to pass this bill. this if they don't, i will continue pressing to pass it and we will succeed. i've already passed it 100-0 in the united states senate, and the next time we're going to get it passed in the house as well and gets it passed into law.

madam president, just a few weeks later, communist china released liu xiao. she was able to receive the prize money for the nobel noe prize and escape the oppression of chinese communist party. madam president, this story speaks volumes about the weakness of a continuical regim, how vulnerable they are to truth, transparency, to sunshine and being called out. renaming the street in front of the cuban embassy after oswaldo paya would shine a light and highlight the truth about the communist regime in cuba. it would be a powerful tool in bringing down the machinery of oppression there. we saw not long ago thousands of cubans taking to the street, fighting for liberty. the cuban people should know the american people stand with them,

against tyranny, against the communist oppression, the poverty, the misery, the death under which they live every day, and it would be a powerful tool to bringing down the machinery of oppression in cuba, in the nonviolent way that oswaldo paya so powerfully championed. this congress, i'm very hopefully that my bill to rename the street in front of the cuban embassy oswaldo paya way will be passed by both chambers. oswaldo paya fought for a free cuba, cuba libre, a cuba built on human decency, on human rights, where citizens are heard, not murdered by their government. let's come together, democrats and republicans, to honor

oswaldo paya. let's come together and force the communist regime to say his name. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold your request? mr. cruz: i will withhold my request. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 lawmakers today voted to repeal a biden labor department rule mandating that that retirement plan managers consider environmental, social and corporate governance factors in more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down here on

c-span2. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the houses and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary the, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government request. ♪ ♪ >> preorder your copy of the congressional direct thely for the 118th congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code at the right to preorder your copy today for it's $29.95 plus shipping and

handling, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we're just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> as we mentioned, the u.s. senate today voting to repeal a biden labor department rule that allowed investment managers to consider environmental, social and corporate governance matters when making investment decisions. next, a portion of that f