Floor Statements

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, democracy is a precious concept, serving as the foundation of our freedoms, which we must not take for granted. Democracy's success is dependent on the active participation of our communities--people of all different backgrounds and beliefs.

I am proud to recognize an organization that inspires members of our diverse communities to take an active role in our democratic process, BoricuActivatEd.

Five years ago, BoricuActivatEd was created amid a crisis: the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria's destruction of Puerto Rico. In a matter of days, the island was on the brink of total disaster, and the former administration that held the keys to alleviating the suffering dragged their heels and closed their eyes.

Like many within the Puerto Rican diaspora that watched the U.S. Government's response in disbelief, a group of former congressional staffers--led by Jennice Fuentes--knew action had to be taken and mobilized. Much remains to be done as Puerto Rico continues to rebuild and recover, especially now after Hurricane Fiona, but it is undeniable that BoricuActivatEd has had an outsized impact in bringing attention to the island's crisis.

BoricuActivatEd operates on the idea that each individual should decide and advocate on the issues that resonate most with them. And that is the ingenuity of this organization, keeping true to its commitment to promoting participatory democracy.

BoricuActivatEd gives individuals across the country the tools they need to stand up and speak out, teaching them the value of civic engagement and the techniques needed to succeed.

They believe that it is never too early to teach people no matter who they are or where they were born that they, too, can play a role in shaping our country. I am especially proud that, when BoricuActivatEd introduced a school-based curriculum on participatory democracy, they chose the students of Camden, NJ, as their first student participants.

It is undeniable that learning best practices in civic engagement is valuable to people of all ages and backgrounds. But we, as the elected representatives of the United States, stand to gain as we navigate our roles as public servants, guided by the priorities of our civically engaged constituents.

I extend my congratulations to BoricuActivatEd for 5 impactful years, showing us that their success is a success for our Nation, and I cannot wait to see all they accomplish in the years ahead.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I appreciate my friend--I do consider him my friend--and colleague and his concern, which we mutually share on this issue. But this legislation was introduced 7 days ago--7 days ago. Most of our colleagues have not even had a chance to read it.

The Foreign Relations Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, has not reviewed or marked up this bill since it just got referred to us. And to my knowledge, my colleague has not made any effort to engage the committee.

Especially in light of its sweeping and mandatory nature and the lack of any waiver--even if a waiver were in our national interest--members with expertise in foreign affairs need to have the opportunity to scrutinize the bill.

Regular order allows us to refine legislation. It ensures we avoid unintended consequences, and that is needed here.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I take the threat of Mexican drug trafficking organizations seriously. During my 30 years in Congress, I have made significant efforts to combat drug trafficking in Mexico, Latin America, the Caribbean, and around the world.

Given the potential impact of this legislation, I would just ask my colleague the following questions for his consideration--these are the questions I ask myself as I am looking at his request: The U.S. Congress has developed a framework of sanctions specifically to target drug traffickers. It is called the Kingpin Act. There is substantial overlap between the Kingpin Act and what is being proposed today. Is this redundancy helpful, or is it hurtful? Why is it needed?

S. 4914 provides no new funding for the management of our sanctions program targeting foreign terrorist organizations, and we are deeply engaged in our whole-sanctions operation as it relates to Russia and Ukraine. This would be additional, but it has no additional resources. Do we want to stretch the U.S. Government's personnel and resources that target foreign terrorist organizations? That is what the legislation would do.

Does my colleague want to explain to the American people why we should have less personnel and funding dedicated to countering Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaida, because, as it is, that is what the legislation would do.

The members of the Foreign Relations Committee take the threat posed by Mexican cartels very seriously. We know that the cartels are deeply involved in the production and trafficking of fentanyl. We know that this is a substance so lethal it kills tens of thousands of American citizens every year.

That is why in June, the committee approved the FENTANYL Results Act, legislation designed to strengthen the United States response to fentanyl trafficking--legislation that received unanimous, bipartisan backing of all members of the Foreign Relations Committee, legislation that we hope can be enacted into law before the end of this Congress. That is a serious legislative effort conducted through normal order of the Senate.

I would just say to my friend, if you really want to address the impact that Mexican cartels and drug trafficking have on the American people, I urge you, respectfully, to work through the Foreign Relations Committee and join us in a meaningful legislative effort.

Finally, before I object, I would just say, I know that my colleague keeps talking about the Biden open borders. Well, it is a little incongruous when you self-designate and made in your comments that it is the U.S. Customs and Border large catches of fentanyl and other drugs under the direction of this administration that is making those catches. It is either that we have an open border and anything comes in, or it is that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol that is actively engaged is stopping the flow of significant amounts of drugs.

For all of those reasons, at this point in time, I will have to object.

Mr. President, I can't let the question rhetorically hang there.

I would say to my colleague, first of all, for all of us who have been fighting this issue on a bipartisan basis--I think his bill has only got Republican sponsors on it, a few--that we have been fighting this, and this is a continuous fight. And, yes, every life that is lost is a life that we mourn. But what would I say to them?

I would say, well, if we get the Fentanyl Results Act legislation passed, which passed the committee on a bipartisan basis, we would have a bipartisan approach toward dealing with this.

I appreciate that my colleague has declared war on fentanyl, but just because he has declared war doesn't mean that his view as to how you meet the challenge is the ultimate result, is the ultimate solution.

So in good faith, I offer our colleague to work with us. But you can't end up making the Senate the Committee of the Whole. If we want to do that, good, let's abolish all of our committees, and let's all sit here and we can bring up legislation after legislation that was just introduced, where nobody has a chance to read it and nobody has a chance to understand the unintended consequences, as noble as the intent might be. But that is what my colleague has done on more than one occasion now. He introduces a piece of legislation and, days after, comes to the floor to seek its approval. Well, that bypasses the entire system that is meant as a check and balance to get the best legislation to accomplish a common goal.

So that is what I would say. We need to work on this together. We are committed to it. That is why we passed legislation in the past. That is why we just passed legislation recently. I hope my colleague will join us, and maybe we can get it in the NDAA together.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent

to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to conclude my comments before the vote.

Madam President, I rise today to once again urge my Senate colleagues to take the bipartisan, practical pro-manufacturing step of providing advice and consent to ratifying the Kigali Amendment.

Each of the four previous amendments to this treaty, the Montreal Protocol, have enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, and Kigali should be no different.

Our companies are clear. They want us to approve this treaty so that they can maximize their export potential of cutting-edge chemicals that they have pioneered. They want us to approve the treaty. It will generate billions of dollars in economic activity and create thousands of jobs here at home in the United States.

They are also clear that if we fail to ratify, they stand to lose. They will be locked out of export markets in key products. American workers will suffer, which is why the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and impacted industries all support the action we are prepared to take.

Now, I have heard the concerns that some colleagues have raised about China and how it benefits from its antiquated status as a ``developing country'' under the Montreal Protocol. Frankly, it is a fair point to raise, but it should have no bearing on whether we join Kigali.

The simple fact is, whether we join Kigali or not has no impact on whether China is treated as a developing country--none. On the other hand, ratifying Kigali will have a major positive benefit for us because China has doubled down on yesterday's chemicals, and we, the United States, lead on all the alternatives. Joining Kigali will turn the world away from China and its companies and towards our competitive strength. It is good for the United States and our businesses, and it is bad for China. However, I also recognize the plain fact that China is no longer a developing country, and I agree that it should not enjoy advantages under the Montreal Protocol that it received because of decisions made more than 30 years ago.

I have been a steadfast champion of addressing the challenges China presents as they are, not as we hope for them to be. I led passage of the Strategic Competition Act and my Taiwan Policy Act, which was recently voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. So I have no problem acknowledging that China should no longer qualify as a developing country, and for that reason, I support the Lee-Sullivan amendment.

The Senate's constitutional role on treaties is both unique and vital. What we are doing today will directly, positively--if we adopt ratification--impact American workers, American businesses, and American consumers. It will meet our challenge against China. It will create greater security at home. It will create great prosperity. There are few things that we do in the Senate that can improve our economy, create jobs, and meet the challenge of China in this one dimension.

For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support providing advice and consent for the Kigali Amendment after the Sullivan amendment is considered.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of Amanda Bennett to be the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. State Agency for Global Media.

When autocrats around the world have been cracking down on independent media; when regimes silence opposition with repression and fear; when they shut down the internet, as we have seen in countries like Cuba and Iran; when they actively target the United States and like-minded democratic nations with disinformation campaigns, it is critical for the United States to have a champion of democracy and free speech leading the U.S. Agency for Global Media, someone who can meet the challenge posed by the spread of digital authoritarianism around the world.

Ms. Bennett is prepared to take on that task. She has over two decades of experience in journalism, including as the director of Voice of America. For 23 years, she worked at the Wall Street Journal, including as a correspondent in Beijing, where she came face-to-face with China's authoritarianism. She has seen how their state security forces watch and detain journalists to suppress the truth.

As a former director of Voice of America, she understands the importance of the U.S. Agency for Global Media's networks and American public diplomacy efforts.

Over the course of her career, she served on the boards of the Lenfest Institute and Committee to Protect Journalists.

In short, Ms. Bennett is without a doubt the right person for this position. She will be a tireless advocate for the journalists working at USAGM and an effective steward of its operations. She will also be an invaluable ally to USAGM's independent partners, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. She will defend the importance of Radio and TV Marti. And she will be accountable to Congress in these efforts.

It has been almost 2 years since the Agency has had a Senate- confirmed CEO at the helm. It is in dire need of steady leadership that supports independent media.

I enthusiastically support Ms. Bennett. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support her confirmation as well.

Madam President, finally, before I yield the floor, I would also like to celebrate the Senate's historic vote today to approve the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

In approving the Kigali Amendment, the Senate took an important step that will have enormous economic and trade benefits for American manufacturing and jobs, but it was also the single most important climate action the Senate and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have taken in more than 30 years. As wildfires ravage the West, hurricanes devastate Puerto Rico, and catastrophic flooding inundates the Midwest, strong action to fight climate change has never been more urgent.

By voting for the Kigali Amendment today, we voted for maintaining a livable planet with clean water to drink. We voted for a stable food supply for all of humanity. We voted, in a strong bipartisan coalition, to keep American innovation and business at the forefront of the transition to clean energy.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude for the support and cooperation of the Foreign Relations Committee's ranking member, the senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Risch. His partnership and the tireless efforts of his staff were essential in the Senate's success on Kigali.

I want to thank my staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Damian Murphy, staff director; Andrew Keller, chief counsel; Josh Klein; Josh Kretman; Julia Greensfelder; and Megan Bartley. They were essential in getting it to the committee and making us successful.

I urge a positive vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

I thank the leader for bringing this important legislative initiative to the Senate floor, and I want to thank our Republican colleagues who have joined in a bipartisan effort to send a very strong message that this is about America's competitiveness; this is about America's security; this is about challenging China.

For more than 20 years, U.S. manufacturers have been hard at work pioneering new technologies for our refrigerators and air-conditioners. They defined the global standard, and they have the competitive advantage over companies in China and India which have doubled down on yesterday's technology.

Our companies want and need the Senate to support them so that they can continue to lead, to create jobs, and to export their goods to global markets.

So this is why I come to the floor today, to urge my Senate colleagues to provide advice and consent to the Kigali Amendment, the fifth technical update to the incredibly successful Montreal Protocol, a treaty amendment that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by bipartisan voice vote--a bipartisan voice vote. That just shows the depth and scope of bipartisan support. Each of the four prior updates were approved by the full Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to do the same for Kigali.

The amendment is a success story of business and government working together, dating back to the George W. Bush Administration. It is an update that will ensure U.S. leadership in exports into the future, and it is the only way--the only way--to keep our businesses from being locked out of markets across the world.

American businesses are clear. It is time to phase down antiquated chemicals, known as HFCs, which American manufacturers want to leave behind. It is time to usher in a new era in which the modern products are purchased all over the world.

Our companies already lead in this space. They have been investing billions of dollars to develop new technologies--alternatives to HFCs-- and they have done so in ways that will ultimately decrease costs-- decrease costs--for U.S. consumers. That is why, for the time being, we have the competitive advantage over China and others.

So the choice on this is clear: Ratifying Kigali means ensuring U.S. companies dominate the export markets. Failure to ratify means a wasted investment and a missed opportunity. Ratifying means we will see thousands more domestic manufacturing jobs--33,000, according to industry estimates. Failure to ratify means U.S. businesses that employ tens of thousands of people across the country will not--will not--be able to sell many of their products in key countries. We are talking about $4.8 billion annually--annually--

of increased exports; $12.5 billion of increased economic output per year. So do we want billions of dollars a year in more exports and economic output or do we want to have lost jobs? Do we want lost exports? Do we want our companies suffering needlessly?

Beginning in 2033, the nations all around the world that have already joined Kigali--137 of them and counting that have already done this-- will be required--required--to block the imports of most HFCs from the countries that have not joined Kigali. So we would be blocked if we don't, in fact, ratify this amendment.

We don't want U.S. manufacturers to be on the outside looking in. They employ thousands of people all over the country. We don't want them to be unable to sell products that they had been at the forefront of developing. Adopting this treaty amendment is the only way to keep our businesses from being locked out of global markets.

So let's not waste the engagement and encouragement by the Bush administration that led U.S. manufacturers to develop alternatives to these harmful chemicals. Let's not waste the accomplishments made by the AIM Act, which President Trump signed into law. We need to remember that the AIM Act provides for the exact same chemical phasedown required by Kigali, which means that we have already taken the required steps domestically.

This means that we wouldn't be required to do anything more--anything more--if we ratify Kigali, but we will miss out on billions in exports and thousands of jobs if we fail to do so.

That is the essence. That is why manufacturers all over the country in States like Wisconsin, Texas, and Kentucky support Senate approval of Kigali. That is why there has been an outpouring of support from the business community, including major employers like Walmart, Carrier, Trane, Lennox, and others.

That is why the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the impacted industries all support this practical and bipartisan Senate action.

So, in closing, I ask my colleagues to fulfill our constitutional role in the treaty process by providing advice and consent to the Kigali Amendment. That requires 67 votes. I think we are well on our way there. Let's support American businesses. Let's continue to be the global leader. Let's support American consumers. Let's make sure the United States stays ahead of the competition. And let's beat China, instead of help China, at the end of the day. We can do all of that and so much more by adopting today's amendment.

And I want to thank so many who have worked on this in a bipartisan effort. Senator Kennedy has been working very hard. I want to thank my colleague Senator Carper, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has been so passionate about the Kigali Amendment and such a force to bring us to this moment today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.