buy. we need to change this policy direction, mr. president, and it needs to happen now. with that i thank you and i yield the floor. i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> caller: okay. i was a missionary years ago in haiti. i'm quite familiar with it. the problem is when gangs get the upper hand, then there's not much you can do except to bring in the military and and stop them. and i don't think haiti even has a military. the united states has come in many years back to bring about order which didn't last that long, but at least they did bring some order. if i've been -- i've been in, for example, another country

just south of mexico, and be vi. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor to talk about the biden economic crisis that the american people are facing every day. last week, democrats threw a big party at the white house. even hollywood celebrities flew in to celebrate. you take a look what was going on in the split-screen television all across the country, they saw democrats celebrating and the stock market collapsing. people's saving, retirements, evaporating, democrats dancing. it was the worst day on wall street since the pandemic, and by the time the party at the white house was over $1.6 trillion was erased from the value of those who hold american stocks. so, why did this happen? the reason that this happened

was because just hours earlier, the world found out that inflation in america went up once again. prices people have to pay for things are up more than 13% since the day joe biden took office. costs, which economists predicted would go down last month, actually went up instead. well, economists made a predicts, but the american people know what they're facing every day when they go to the grocery store, pay their rent, pay their energy bills, try to buy back-to-school supplies for their kids. inflation is now going up after the democrats passed a reckless tax-and-spending bill. it's nothing to celebrate, madam president. even though they were down at the white house celebrating, the american people aren't celebrating, they're suffering. they're suffering the worst inflation in over 40 years. prices have risen faster than

wages for 17 consecutive months. 17 months in a row prices rising faster than wages. with each passing month, the american people can afford less and less. now people have cut into their savings, borrowed money just to get by. credit card debt is climbing. reports across the nation are more and more people are buying on lay-away. people on fixed incomes cannot keep up. they're falling further behind. it's no wonder then many seniors are delaying their retirements. rising costs are hitting our troops. right now, our troops are watching their paychecks disappear, melt away. according to a recent report, the army is now recommending our troops sign up for food stamps.

the united states army. can you imagine such a thing? recommending troops sign up for food stamps. after the deadly and disgraceful evacuation of afghanistan, people knew joe biden had very little respect for our men and women in uniform. what we're seeing today is a national failure by joe biden and the democrats. youyou're hereos in uniform shod not have to rely on welfare in order for them to serve the nation. our soldiers should not have to find themselves in a battle against joe biden's inflation. and the united states senate still hasn't passed the defense bill this year. we're waiting to go. senator schumer says, well, we'll do that next month. it just shows the democrats do not prioritize our national defense. it's always at the bottom of the list. leave it for last.

democrats have other priorities, like their james taylor concert last week at the white house on the lawn. democrats have been too busy paying off the climate activists to pay our troops. the senate ought to get to work on a defense bill immediately. we should ensure our troops, whether they're serving at the air force base in wyoming, or nell is air force base in nevada, or buckley air force base in colorado that they get a raise so they won't further be hurt by joe biden's inflation. now, many democrats seem oblivious to the pain and suffering that they have caused american families. when joe biden took office inflation was essentially nonexistent. gallon of gas was $2.39. today's prices, almost $3.70 a

gallon. higher in states like nevada, washington state, and others. when joe biden took office, economists were predicting an economic boom. now our economy continues to shrink. in just a matter of months, joe biden took us from recovery to recession. recovery right now is nowhere in sight. consumer confidence is worst today than it was during the lockdowns of 2020. hard to believe, but true. this summer we saw the lowest consumer confidence ever recorded in the history of polling for these sorts of things. families feel very stressed about the future, and prices continue to climb. now, ultimately, this means that we're going to have layoffs at a time when people are running out of savings. a poll last week showed people across the country are cutting back spending on just about everything, just to keep up, just to avoid falling further and further behind.

some cutting back on groceries. some are growing their own, trying to grow their own food instead of going to the grocery store. at the same time, the federal reserve is getting ready to raise interest rates again, maybe as soon as today. this year we've already seen the largest rate hikes in 40 years. rates are going higher and higher and higher as the democrat-caused inflation wildfire continues to burn. there's no end in sight, and no relief for the pain being caused to american families. mortgage rates have almost doubled this year. they're the highest they've been since the great recession. and they're going to go even higher. at the same time, mortgage applications have dropped significantly. more and more people are giving up on the american dream of even owning their own home. to make matters worse, it doesn't look like interest rates

are coming down anytime soon. you know, madam president, it's very easy to cause inflation, very difficult to get rid of it. last march joe biden caused inflation with the stroke of a pen on a bill that every democrat in this body voted for, and working families all across the country have suffered ever since. interest rate hikes are designed to slow down the economy. yet, we have an economy already shrinking and they want to slow it down some more. it shrank for the first six months of this year. that's always been the definition of a recession. the administration's even trying to redefine recession while we're in the middle of one, because they don't want to own it, but they do. the pain and suffering that people are being subjected to has no end in sight, and the policies of this president and the policies of the democrats

who have all voted for it, every one of them, have brought us inflation and recession. the wealthy elites that run the democrat party are doing just fine. it's the hard-working men and women all across the country who are suffering. republicans are committed to help lower prices for working men and women all around america. certainly in my state of wyoming it's a major concern, major discussion, it's what i hear about, what i heard about friday at our victorious football game and the tailgate party is what things cost, trying to just stay ahead, trying to get up, keep ahead, trying to fall less far behind. we're committed to get the economy back on track. it's time for the democrats to get their priorities straight. we need to pass a defense bill to take care of our troops. we need to stop the reckless spending and the tax hikes. these are the policies that have

caused the cost of everyday items to continue to go up. the democrats need to stop strangling american energy. it's what's driving up the price, not just at the pump but electric bills, home heating, natural gas, all of the things that the american people need and want -- energy that's affordable, available, and reliable. the american people deserve much better than what we've been getting from the democrats, and the democrats, let me point out, are in full control, the house, the senate, and the white house. it is their policies and their positions that brought us 40-year-high inflation, food going up faster and faster, 13% inflation since the day joe biden and the democrats took over. it is time, madam president, for a change. thank you, madam president.

i yield the floor.

>> 35 years ago this month every mission on earth came together for the first time in human history to sign on to a global accord to save the planet's dying ozone layer. it was a convergence unlike any before with uniting not just every member of the united nations, but in time also the european union and even the holy sea. that accord, of course, was the montreal protocol, hailed by then-u.n. secretary general with kofi if aman as, quote, perhaps

the single most successful international agreement to date. today the senate will finish work of ratifying the amendment to the protocol when we vote later today here on the floor. ratifying amendment will require two-thirds of the senate, and i want to thank every single member, democratic and republican alike, who voted yesterday to move forward on this measure. our country, our businesses and our planet will benefit because of it. i hope we can see that same level of support today. in a year where we've already seen plenty of major bipartisan bills become law i, the amendment might be just one of the most important bipartisan achievements amendment number 5518 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: mr. sul haven't

proposes amendment numbered 5518. mr. sullivan: madam president, about four years ago i was part of a meeting with several senators -- there were about 11 of us -- here in the u.s. capitol with the chinese ambassador. and in the meeting, i had raised a number of issues about the lack of reciprocity that china has with regard to the united states -- market access on our trade, their ability to invest here but we couldn't invest there, the fact that they have all kinds of journalists in america, we can't have journalists over there, just across the board on so many things -- confucius institutes in american universities, no equivalent in chinese universities, no reciprocity on so many topics. and i'll never forget the response of the chinese ambassador to the united states.

11 u.s. senators right there, he said, well, senator, i agree, there's a lack of reciprocity in several areas but that's because china is a developing country. china is a developing country. that's what he said, just four years ago. and my response was, mr. ambassador, with all due respect, can you please stop using that talking point about you, your country be a developing country? it's kind of an insult to all of our intelligence. and, to be honest, you're not a developing country. the american people know it, the world knows it, and you need to stop telling everybody and using that as a crutch. madam president, what does that have to do with the amendment that i just called up? well, today before we vote on the kigali treaty, i have an amendment that i'm asking all of

my colleagues here in the senate to support. i'm not talking about the merits of the kigali treaty itself. there's an element of this treaty that raises a principle that is at stake right now that is so important with regard to china, the united states, and the rest of the world. this treaty that we're getting ready to vote on continues to classify china as a, quote, developing country. why does that matter? well, as i mentioned, it's facade. china is is not a developing country. it is the second-largest economy in the world. it is one of the most industrialized countries in the world. it has one of the biggest militaries in the world. the world bank even now considers china an upper middle-income country.

but what china keeps trying to do in international organizations and in international treaties is continue to get the same benefits as truly developing countries, such as ghana, somalia, nigeria, bangladesh. these are the countries that need global assistance, not china. so my amendment today is very simple to this treaty. it first says that the united states senate concludes, quote, the people's republic of china is not a developing country and the united nations and other intergovernmental organizations should not treat the people's republic of china as such, unquote. and then my amendment, madam president, goes one step further, and it makes the advice and consent of the senate for

this treaty contingent upon the secretary of state of the united states going to the u.n. in the vienna convention secretariat to file an amendment to the treaty that clarifies that china should be taken off the annex that defines it as a developing country. so we have a declaration -- china is not a developing country; and then it says to the secretary of state, before you give the advice and consent of the united states senate, you shall go to the u.n. and file an instrument that says china should be removed from the list of countries to this treaty that are called developing countries. and again, madam president, this matters. this matters, for example, on this treaty.

why? because in this treaty, the developing country annex gives those countries under that annex much longer time to implement the treaty, and it actually gives them funding from the u.n. to implement the treaty. now, where scissor that funding come -- now, where does that funding come from? most of it comes from the united states. so, in essence, right now, the way the fret is organized, the united states -- the way the treaty is organized, the united states gives the u.n. money to help implement the treaty, and a lot of that money is going to go to china. does anyone in the united states senate think that makes sense? does anyone in america think that makes sense in if does not. furthermore, on this treaty and so many other international agreements, whether at the u.n. or other places, when you give klein more time for implementation -- when you give china more time for complementation, particularly as it reading of the amendments to the global environment, all

you're doing is harm ago the global environment. china is an industrialized country. the u.s. senate, the international organizations where china is a member needs to start recognizing this. so i'm proud to say i worked closely with senators barrasso and senators lee on this amendment. i actually wish it were stronger. senator barrasso is here on the floor talking about his amendment. i actually think that is the preferred way to go. but we couldn't get agreement in terms of the barrasso amendment, so i'm encouraging all of my colleagues to vote on this principle. the u.s. senate on any international agreement or any international treaty should no longer agree to the obvious -- china is not a developing country. it's an industrialized country,

and we should make clear in the senate and in international organizations that that's the view of the united states, and we need to encourage the secretary of state, which is exactly what my amendment does, to make sure the u.n. and other countries agree with us on that. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment a i yield the floor. mr. menendez: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to conclude my comments before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i rise today to once again urge my senate colleagues to take the bipartisan, practical, pro-manufacturing step of providing advise 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're 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 senate association of -- which is why the national association of manufacturers, the u.s. chamber of commerce and impacted industries all support the action we are preparing to take. now, i've had -- heard the concerns that some colleagues have raised about china and how it benefits from its antiquated status as a, quote, developing country under the montreal protocol. frankly, it's 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 can i gallon lay will have a -- kigali will you have a major partisan 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's good for the united states and our businesses, and it's 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 receives because of decisions made more than 30 years ago. i've been a steadfast champion

in 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 was recently voted out of the foreign relations committee on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. so i have no problem acknowledging that china no longer should qualify as a developing country. and for that reason, i support the lee-sullivan amendment. madam president, the senate's constitutional role on treaties is both unique and vital. what we're doing today will directly positive, 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 greater prosperity. there are few things that we do in the senate than 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. and with that, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired, and amendment 5503 is withdrawn. the question occurs on amendment 5518. the yeas and nays are previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 96, the nays are 0, and the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on the resolution of ratification as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 69. the nays are 27. two-thirds of the senators present, a quorum being present, having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of eowe of ratification is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, united states agency for global media, amanda bennet of the district of columbia to be chief executive officer. mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, mr. president, this is a very good day. we have joust passed the kigali amendment to the montreal protocol on a strong, bipartisan basis. this is a win-win-win. win for u.s. jobs. win for u.s. investment, and win for u.s. leadership in the fight against climate change. we've talked a lot about how this amendment will help u.s. businesses, u.s. jobs, and u.s. competitiveness overseas. but let's talk about how important this amendment will be for protecting our planet. ratifying the kigali amendment along with passing the inflation reduction act is the strongest one-two punch against climate change any congress has ever undertaken. let me say that again. ratifying the kigali amendment along with passing the inflation

reduction act is the strongest one-two punch against climate change any congress has ever taken. in fact, amazing statistic, folks, people don't pay attention to this one, but it is vital. experts say that phasing out our use of hfc's will help prevent up to half a degree celsius of warming by the end of the century. that's worth repeating as well. experts say that phasing out our use of hfc's will help prevent up to half a degree celsius of warming by the end of the century. it's an easily overlooked victory but a massive one all coming from eliminating this family of dangerous chemicals which are a thousand times more deadly per molecule than carbon dioxide. and on top of it all, ratifying this amendment will give u.s.

businesses a huge leg up. it will open exports to new international markets, generate tens of billions in new investments, and help create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. and we will get a much needed edge against chinese businesses who still lag behind in developing viable hfc alternatives. under kigali, our experts will increase while china will lose out. so once again ratifying the kigali amendment is a win-win-win, a win for u.s. jobs, a win for u.s. investment, and most of all a win for our global campaign to defeat the climate crisis and preserve our planet for future generations. i want to thank my colleague from delaware who has been such a persistent advocate in this -- on this legislation.

and there are so many others. the senators from new mexico and hawaii and delaware who have worked so hard on it as well. i thank them for their stea steadfastness. the globe, our globe is rejoicing today because of this legislation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i want to thank our leader for his leadership. none of this would have happened without your leadership. i want to thank your staff. i want to thank the relative -- respective staffs on our side here and the environmental public works committee. i want to thank our friend from louisiana who has been great and other folks on the other side of the aisle. my mother used to say to my sister and me when we were kids, she would say things happen in three's. i remember she would say things happen in threes. given what the leader just said,

i'm thinking about three's especially with respect to making sure this planet is going to be around for our children and grandchildren. if you go back to the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law roughly ten months ago by the president, we did a whole lot there, you'll recall with respect to roads, highways, bridges, water, wastewater, water infrastructure, flood control. but that legislation had at that point the largest climate title that we'd ever put in a bill of any consequence here in the united states, and that's number one. number two would be the ira, the inflation reduction act that was signed into law just last month by the president and championed by any number of folks, including by our colleague from west virginia, joe manchin, but i want to thank him and the majority leader for their good work. that was number two because the investments -- clean energy

investments that we make in the inflation reduction act are just extraordinary, extraordinary. and then today to pass the kigali amendment to the montreal protocol. people might be wondering, what in the world is that? and i'll just walk you back in time. i don't know if people might remember there used to be a naval flight officer in the war. maybe after i moved to delaware, i remember hearing something about speculation about a hole in the ozone and there might be a hole in the ozone. and first people dismissed it. i dismissed it. but over time the concerns persisted, and the hole in the ozone grew and grew. somewhere along about 1985 some updated scientific information, evidence emerged that said there is a hole in the ozone, and it's big and it's getting bigger.

and our president at the time, as i recall, was not a democrat; he was a republican; ronald reagan. and under his leadership, we as a nation joined in the montreal protocol finalized in 1997 saying what's growing, what's happening here is exactly clear. and what that is is the -- there is a hole in the ozone that's being created by materials that are in our air conditioners, our refrigerators, and our coolers, and we call them refrigerants, and when they leaked out of the air conditioners, refrigerators, coolers, they actually created the hole in the ozone. so the question is, do we have to give up our refrigerators, air conditioners, our coolers, freezers, do we've to give that up in order to address the hole in the owe does on? as it turns out, we did not. we had to replace the cfc's,

refrigerant at the time, that contributed to the hole the in the ozone. what we had to do is replace those cfc's with something new, and scientists came up with that something new. what they came up with was hfc's, hydrofluorocarbons. what i know about chemistry you can fit on a fairly small thumbnail. but hfc's came along and, guess what? the hole in the ozone started getting smaller. we stayed cool, the air conditioners worked, the freezers worked, the hole in the ozone started getting cooler. what didn't get cooler was our planet because hfc's, as senator schumer suggested, hfc's are about a thousand times worse than carbon dioxide with respect to global warming. we final lay have realized that. can we do anything about it? if so, can we do it to make sure

we stay cool -- cold, if you will -- and statement address -- and at the same time address climate? some people say, we can't do good things for this planet. as senator schumer suggested, that's not -- just not true. this is sort of like having our cake and eating it, too, because we can create jobs, a lot of them, we're talking about creating with the phase-down of hfc's and in the next few years creating literally tens of thousands of jobs, not in some other country but here. we're talking about creating these jobs using technology developed here, and we're talking about the ability to export this technology and sell products using this technology all over the place. i forget exactly what the economic value is from these activities, but it is in the tens of billions of dollars -- here, with american technology

created by american workers. who wouldn't be for that? who wouldn't be for that? some of our republican colleagues offered an amendment today -- senator lee and i think senator sullivan joined together in an amendment. i think most of us voted for that. it's been apartisan dod and added to this -- it's been adopted and added to this package. the other thing i would mention, mr. president, is about a month ago you may recall we stayed up all night during a vote-a-rama working on the reconciliation legislation that led to the ira, the inflation reduction act. i remember the next day going home. i was just dog tired. when which i'm on the train. i got off the train and i drove -- before i went home, i drove to wawa. i love wawa. they're all up and down the east coast. i got a small cup of coffee.

i went to the cashier to pay for it and the lady at the cash register said, your money is no good here. i said, no, no, i want to pay. i want to pay for it. she said, no, no, i'm mindful of what you've been up all night doing. your money is no good here. i said, could i get a larger cup of coffee? she said, no. your money is no good here. she also went on to say, mr. president, i have a son, i have a daughter. i want to make sure they have a planet that they can grow up on and can grow old on. i think that's a sentiment that almost any father, mother, grandmother, grandfathers, grandparent would feel and have. i would just say to them today, sometimes you look at what's going on here, we've come together, we've come together on something that's extremely important for us -- those of my generation but even more important for those who follow us. bipartisan solutions, lasting

solutions. this is a good, bipartisan solution. for everybody that's been a part of this, i want to thank you. i want to pay our thanks as well to the president and his administration for their help inest going this done. this is a -- for getting this done. this is a day, as my colleague would say, this is a day that the lord hath made. let us rejoice. amen. thank you. i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president?

the. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, while we're standing here right now in washington, d.c., in the middle of an afternoon, protests are happening all over iran right now. the latest news reports coming out from social media and the very limited media that can get out of iran, massive protests are in the streets of 20 different cities in iran right now. the latest count is nine people have been killed in those protests by iranian forces trying to be able to shut down the protests that are now breaking out all over the country. including, by the way, protests in tehran. what's going on? this has been a simmering issue for a long time in iran, and as i've stated several times on this floor and in committee hearings, our opposition with iran is not with the iranian people. the iranian people live in an

oppression underneath the iranian regime which pushes their thumb down on them and limits their progress in their world and in their own country. the spark of this latest group of protests that are happening in the streets all over iran is a young lady who was murdered in police custody in iran named missa hamini, a 22-year-old iranian world who died in custody because she broke iran's hijab law. in other words, she wasn't wearing her head covering and so, brace yourself, the morality police arrested her, the morality police in iran, detained her where she was apparently beaten to death while she was in prison. now, the police and the regime have come out and said she had

sudden heart failure, but with multiple injuries around her head, that's not sudden heart fail u. -- failure. and the nation once again of iran is rising up to say, this has to stop. americans would be surprised at the number of social media posts that are getting out of iran right now where large crowds, large crowds are gathering in cities tearing down the pictures of the ayatollah and chanting in the streets of tehran death to the dictator. i have friends in iran that have actually sent me some of the social media posts to be able to show me, this is what the street looks like today. this is breaking out across iran. now, what's interesting is at the same time the president of iran has been allowed to be able to come into the united states, to be at the u.n. general

assembly, to be able to speak out for the regime's benefit to the rest of the world. he will be a remarkable side-by-side of what's happening in iran on the streets right now and the iranian leadership at the u.n. general assembly. at this same moment as well, iran is working with russia and has delivered hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles that are weaponized, little kamikaze drones, that are literally taking out ukrainian artillery right now in the field in ukraine. because the iranians haven't just supplied these weaponized drones to russia, they've brought russian leaders into iran to be able to train them on how to be able to attack ukraine with these weapons. right now as well, the russians are calling up additional reservists to be able to fight

the ukrainians and to be able to continue to take the fight to them. protests are also erupting in russia right now from russian moms that are furious that their husbands and their sons are being called up to be able to fight in ukraine, to replace the thousands of casualties that russia has suffered in ukraine. now, why do i connect the dots on all of these? what's happening in the streets in russia and in ukraine? because at the moment of what's happening, the united states government has partnered with russian diplomats to negotiate with iran a restart of the nuclear deal with them. i can't make this up. so the united states is using russia as its proxy to negotiate

with iran to be able to restart a nuclear negotiation with them. listen, the jcpoa, this nuclear deal as its commonly called, that was put in place in 2015, was then set aside to say it is to the accomplishing its purposes. let's review what happened in the days after that. planefuls -- literal planefuls with palates loaded with cash were sent to iran as soon as this deal was signed. it was a government suddenly flush with cash. how did that regime use that cash? they bought munitions to be able to fight against americans in iraq. from 2015 to 2017, that appeared immediate live the jcpoa was signed and planefuls of cash were sent to them, munitions fired against american troops in iraq increased 341%.

during that same time period, terrorist incidents increased 183%. there were 58 incidents involving iranian vessels in the gulf that put american troops at risk. iran used its money not to be able to help the iranian people but to attack us and to attack our allies. our nation withdrew from this nuclear negotiation four years ago. after that happened, iran's exports of crude oil declined by more than two million barrels a day, cutting off a major supply of money into the regime. iran's defense budget was then cut 28% because of those revenue shortfalls. iran's currency lost 70% of its value as pressure was applied to iran to actually join in to nations around the world, to actually become a nation like the rest of the world.

i'm bringing a sense of the senate today. it's an issue that i brought multiple times. we should have ongoing dialogue with iran. they are ambitious to become a nuclear weapons-capable nation. they are the single-largest of the state sponsor of terrorism in the world. they are the destabilizing force in all of the middle east. every nation in that entire region has to prepare themselves for an inevitable, erratic, irrational attack from iran, and every nation fears the day that they gain a nuclear-capable weapon. with the gaps in the nuclear negotiations are large. let me list some of them. the nuclear negotiation excludes any conversation about their terrorist activities. it's just simply not limiting their terrorist activities, just limiting their nuclear capability. they're building long-range

weapons capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. why would you need to build a long-range heavy missile unless you're carrying a nuclear tip? the two are connected. there are terrorist activities, their missile ambitions and their nuclear ambitions. we should connect those in all of our relationships. my amendment and my sense of the senate that i'm bringing is very clear today. one is to acknowledge what we all know is actually happening. the second is to say we can not have any kind of sanctions relief on lifting petroleum sales coming out of iran. the next section of it, third section of it is simply not limiting or not releasing any of the sanctions on the iranian revolutionary guard corps. they are the core of the terrorist activities in the areas. they were the trainers for those that actually attacked americans in iraq. we should not lift sanctions on them. the fourth on this is not

providing relief to the financial institutions in iran so that they can continue to extend their terrorist activities and their financial activities behind the scenes. the goal of this is to be able to put pressure on the regime but to protect the iranian people as much as possible. the final statement that's in this sense of the senate is to affirm our long-term friendship with the people of iran and our understanding that they are living under the thumb of this regime. my friend that i had mentioned before is from iran. he's reached out to me in the last 24 hours with this simple question -- the iran people are on the streets trying to gain their freedom, trying to be able to speak and live their faith as they choose to. and here's his question -- what

are the americans going to do to stand with us? that is a fair question for this body. the iranian people that are begging for their own freedom do not want the american response to be sending cash to the regime so they can oppress their people more or lifting the sanctions at this moment so that the regime can continue to advance its terrorist activities or just disengaging from its missile ambitions that destabilizes the region or to be able to continue to be able to use russia as a proxy for the united states of america while russia is literally using iranian drones to attack the ukrainians. let's speak with a clear voice to the iranian people on the streets. they want to hear the united states say we stand with your passion for freedom, not we

stand with the regime and what they're trying to do to you. so saying all that, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1950 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i have such respect for my colleague from oklahoma. we are often on the same side of issues related to matters of national security in the middle east, but i disagree with his analysis that he's presented here today. let me make just a remark or two

about his immediate request and then make a few remarks about the broader work to try to protect the world from a nuclear weapons-armed iran. first, as i understand it -- and i've just had a few days to take a look at the underlying legislation -- it would significantly remove the administration's discretion to waive sanctions or to enter into certain oil sales or authorize business with iranian financial institutions in that only a treaty entered into by the united states would provide that authority to the administration. i think that's generally bad policy. we can imagine a whole set of diplomatic engagements with any nation, including iran, in

which an executive may wish to toggle sanctions or licenses in order to provoke some behavior beneficial to the united states. that's in fact why we regularly build waivers into our sanctions statute. to suggest that on iran policy the president is going to have no ability to impact sanctions or licenses until a treaty is entered into ties the administration's hands, both the republican and democratic administrations in a way that i simply don't think is helpful. i understand my friend's argument. he was not a supporter of the jcpoa. he does not desire for the united states to enter back into a nuclear agreement with iran. and at the heart of this request is the essence of president trump's iran policy, the idea that if we just keep hammering

iran with sanctions, that either their behavior will get better or they will at some point choose to come to the table and do a comprehensive deal. the nuclear program, their ballistic missile program, their support for terrorism. now i think that was a credible argument back during the obama administration. many people said obama shouldn't give iran anything until iran comes to the table on everything. this congress went a different way. we ended up taking a vote that, by our rules, allowed for the nuclear agreement to go forward. but we now have the benefit of the opposition's argument to the jcpoa having been tested for four years. trump basically took that philosophy, keep sanctioning iran, don't worry about the fact that it's unilateral and even wawel iran will come -- eventually iran will come to the

table for everything. it was an unmitigated disaster. not only did iran not come to the table on everything, they came to the table on nothing. their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to u.s. interests. just look at the reality on the ground in a place like lebanon or yemen or iraq or syria. at the end of trump's term, did iran have more or less influence in those places? unquestionably more. more integrated with the houthis. by the end of trump's term they were in charge of the lebanese government. there was less separation between the iraqi power structure and tehran. at the end of that four-year period of time, testing maximum pressure, iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. they were not negotiating with the united states on any of the conditions that the trump administration laid down for us, and they were shooting at us. not a single attack on u.s.

servicemembers by iranian proxies while the united states was in the jcpoa. let me say that again. not a single attack on u.s. servicemembers by iranian proxies when the united states was in the jcpoa. they occur with regularity today. attacks against u.s. forces housed in bases in iraq and syria, restarted once we withdrew from the deal, and this year alone there have been attacks in february, march, april, may, june, july, and august. and so i'm not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to whether we're better off with or without a nuclear deal with iran because here's what we got from maximum pressure. american troops under fire, more support for proxies, no hopes of negotiation, and the icing on the cake -- an iranian nuclear program that is now

weeks away from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement. so we tested this theory that you just hit them with sanctions, hit them with sanctions and eventually they capitulate. it didn't work by, i think, all objective measures it didn't work. and so it makes sense that the biden administration wants to engage and try to put back together a deal that was good for the united states and our allies. lastly i'll say this. the senator from oklahoma is right. the iranians are bad people. we see what they're doing right now on the streets of tehran, brutally repressing another wave of protests. we listened to what the president said on tv just this week, denying the holocaust. these are our adversaries. this is an enemy. but all throughout american

history we've understood that there are times when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and your adversary and engage in a diplomatic conversation that's good for you and good for the world. it is true, if iran was further away from a nuclear weapon it would be good for us and it would be good for other countries in the world, including russia which is why russia is sometimes part of these negotiations. but i don't know that because something is good for everybody it shouldn't be acceptable to the united states congress. and so i'm going to object to this request because i believe that the jcpoa is the right thing for the security of this nation, because i believe in diplomacy, even with your adversaries because i think we have tested the proposition that maximum pressure will work better than a nuclear agreement. we now know the results. and i also believe that some of the details of this resolution ultimately bind the hands of american presidents in a way

that probably isn't good precedent for the long-term security of the nation. so again, i think my colleague comes to the floor with good-faith objections and long-lg standing objections. i come down in a different place, and for that reason i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i appreciate my colleague. we have a lot of agreements in areas in lebanon and other areas in the region that we work diligently together to be able to resolve very, very difficult areas in this region. but i do want to say facts are stubborn things. when my colleague makes the statement that we can see what happened during the time of the jcpoa and we can see what happened during the time of sanctions, i'm welcome to be able to look at those facts. during the time of the jcpoa, as i mentioned before, from 2015 to 2017, munitions fired against american troops in iraq

increased 341%. many of those munitions were iranian provided. so to be able to say there were no attacks on americans during the jcpoa is just factually not correct. i can take you to a multitude of members of the united states military that will speak specifically of munitions that were fired on them, and all kinds of improvised explosive devices created by the iranian revolutionary gawrpd corps and -- guard corps and shipped into aircraft to be able to attack specifically during that time period. it's not factually correct there were no attacks on americans while the jcpoa was there. all the folks that look at these issues saw that terrorism increased 183% during that time period. during the time of the sanctions, iran suffered real consequences in our economy, including a dramatic drop in their own defense spending by 28% during that time period.

i received a personal outreach from an individual who is a leader in lebanon, which my colleague and i both know well, that reached out to me personally and said whatever the united states is doing right now to cut off funding to iran, keep doing it because it's also cutting off funding to hezbollah and lebanon. they're not getting their paychecks right now and that's helping the stability of our government. so there was a real effect during that time period. we can discuss strategic aspects of which one is more effective, the agreement, or the heavier sanctions, but we can't just ignore and say there was no benefit during that time period for the last several years on the pressure that was put on iran during this time period. the fact still remains the people of iran are asking the question. they are on the streets chanting for freedom. what is the senate going to do to stand with them? and currently it's nothing. i'd like for it to be something

to stand with the people of iran as they speak out against a repressive regime that they're under the thumb of. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the resolution of ratification, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: and i also ask unanimous consent that the secretary of the senate be authorized to make grammatical, technical changes to the resolution of ratification with respect to treaty document 117-1 in order to reflect the addition of material. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i'm here today as we close in on the vote on the disclose act scheduled for tomorrow to urge my colleagues to vote yes on that measure. i have introduced the disclose

act in every congress since leader schumer first unveiled it in 2010 on the heels of the wretched citizens united decision. every congress just about every time i've set foot in washington i have sounded the alarm on the ever growing tsunami of slime that citizens united unleashed into our elections. i rise once more today to urge this chamber to end the flood of dark money drowning our democracy. this is not inevitable. as late as 2006 the amount of dark money sloshing around in our elections was only $5 million. in 2020 it had crossed the billion dollar threshold. big special interests don't spend a billion dollars without expecting return on investment.

and that has damaged our democracy. voting to clean up that mess presents clear choices. whether or not billionaires and big corporations can purchase influence in secret, whether or not americans deserve to know who is buying that influence, whether or not corruption has a place in our american democracy. 12 years after citizens united, the evidence is in. dark money powers up corporations and mega donors to pump billions into phony front groups. those groups often with soothing names like people for puppies and prosperity then spew bile and slime into our elections. we often can't know exactly who paid for that bile and slime,

but when corporations and the ultrarich keep getting what they want from a dark money-funded congress, well, you see that over and over and over again and americans' suspicions grow. their gut tells them the corporations and billionaires are behind the phony ads out to rig our political system. and americans' instincts are right. academic studies show that economic elite and business interests command huge influence in government policy while regular people have statistically little or none. studies also show that politicians elected to federal office with the support of dark money are more likely to support legislation aligned with big

corporate interests. regardless of what the american people want, the big donor interests win time after time. and dark money isn't limited to elections either. i've come to the floor now 18 times to expose a decades long right-wing scheme to capture the federal judiciary and its crown jewel, our supreme court. this scheme included a $580 million secretive campaign of dark money and phony front groups to pack the courts with judges selected for green greene donor friendly policies running multimillion dollar ad campaigns to keep the confirmations of those judges and justices on

track. now the result is the court that dark money built is delivering bick -- delivering big for its donor puppeteers. in a matter of day the six on the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, manufactured new polluter-friendly legal doctrines and threw out century's old gun regulations, all things big donors wanted, all things majority of americans did not want. one right-wing donor just dumped $1.6 billion to supercharge the dark money operation that captured the court and cements that dark money network's hold over the federal judiciary. and guess what? we wouldn't know who that donor is if someone hadn't tipped off

the press, propublica and "the new york times." think about that. we only know this because we get occasional little glimpses of these mega donors' covert schemes. that means this is only the tip of the iceberg. and where that $1.6 billion goes on its way out into our political system will be obscured in dark money channels. no wonder americans trust in the government -- and the government is cratering. 50% of our -- people say our jo. needs major reforms or overhaul. a quarter of americans say they have confidence in the supreme court. that's down 11% just from last year. americans know something is deeply amiss in our democracy. mr. president, i believe to restore trust in government, we need to flush dark money out of government. year after year, poll after

poll, overwhelming majorities of americans say money and politics and wealthy political donors are the root of washington's dysfunction. election cycle after election cycle, even during covid voters listed political corruption among their most important issues. americans no longer trust that their voices matter here. not as much as the dark money voices of big corporations and billionaires. and it's time to listen to them. it's time to rid our system of the corrupting influence of unlimited dark money. even the citizens united justices recognized that unlimited political spending without transparency would corrupt. even the justices who opened the floodgates of unlimited

political spending knew that if it was not transparent, it would corrupt. they just wouldn't do anything about it. the disclose act hinges on a very simple idea, that americans deserve to know who is spending to influence their vote. if you agree with that simple idea, vote for the disclose act. if you believe that corporations and billionaires shouldn't hide behind phony front groups while spending gobbs of money in elections, you should vote for the disclose act. if you oppose corruption, you should vote for the disclose act. it is time for every member of this body to go on record about this poison in our system. and with any luck, with ten republicans joining us, we can return to a congress that serves america again. and americans deserve that.

i yield the floor to my distinguished colleague senator merkley. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, when i was in grade school, i had basic civics education. we learned about the fact that the vision of america was based on individuals standing up for their ideas in the public square, that they could say here's what i think should take us forward and here are the arguments behind it. someone else would say not so quick. i don't think that's the right path. we should do nothing else. but in the course of this debate, those people gathered in the square could decide which way to go. partly based on whether they admired the thinking and the ideas being presented by the individuals. perhaps also what they knew about the individuals who were making those comments. but this basic competition of ideas freely expressed by

members of the community and debated openly. well, i thought that was a beautiful thing and it really goes to the notion of freedom of speech and the power that flows up from the people because it's the people gathered and discussing ideas that are making decisions. and in a republic like our republic, those decisions also involve who you vote for because of that set of ideas. and that person is sent to a state legislature or the house of representatives or the u.s. senate to fight for those ideas. isn't that a beautiful concept of complete transparent debate? you know who else agrees with this idea? no longer with us. antonin scalia. now, i don't know that i ever quoted antonin scalia before, former supreme court justice who passed away a few years ago.

he had this to say about disclosure. he said, and i quote, requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage without which democracy is doomed. and then he continued. for my part i do not look forward to society which thanks to the supreme court on which he sat, campaigns anonymously, hidden from public scrutiny, protected from accountability of criticism, this, he said, does not resemble the home of the brave. so here's a very conservative justice saying that without transparency, without public accountability, democracy is doomed. i love the revolutionary idea that power flows up from the people or as abraham lincoln put it, that we are of the people, by the people, for the people.

and seven weeks from now, americans are going to go to the polls. and they're going to cast their vote on issues and individuals running for office based on what they've heard and here's a challenge. a lot of what they heard is not about people standing up in public with the courage of their convictions but about secret campaign spending where there's no accountability, the exact kind of influence that antonin scalia said dooms our democracy. citizens united, the decision in 2010, is something we talk about quite a bit. what it basically said is that if you don't give money directly to a candidate but instead run a campaign on their behalf, you can spend as much as you want. so unlimited spending. this created super pacs that can

create unlimited spending from corporations, unlimited spending from individuals, and run unlimited campaigns on behalf of someone, super pac. but here's the thing. when they made that decision, the court thought that perhaps congress would act to make sure that all of those donations were disclosed. they weren't making a decision that they liked secrecy. after all an conanyone scalia who voted for citizens united said with secrecy, democracy is doomed. well, we h haven't acted because we have a triple veto baked into the way the senate acts that says you need a supermajority to get a bill to the floor. a supermajority to close debates and a supermajority to go to a final vote on the bill. colleagues across the aisle have said we want to protect that secret money because we think it

helps us. that secret money is all about not government of, by, and for the people. that secret money is about government of, by, and for the powerful. so they are using their veto for the powerful to corrupt our country, to corrupt the core vision of government of, by, and for the people. that's what this disclose act is all about, to say that we only thrive if the money is legitimate in campaigns. now, let me explain this. there are two standards my republican colleagues have been fighting for. one standard for ordinary people and a completely different standard for the rich and powerful. for ordinary people they have supported public disclosure. so ordinary people in america, they spend $200 on a campaign, it's publicly disclosed. everybody knows who you gave the money to. but if a billionaire doesn't

write a $200 check but writes a $200 million check on behalf of running a campaign for an individual, it's secret. it's secret. secrecy for the rich and powerful. disclosure for ordinary americans. this is all about the equivalent of a stadium sound system by the powerful that drowns out the voice of ordinary people. so that drowning out effort, as my colleague just pointed out, has gone higher and higher and higher. the sound system from the stadium has gotten louder and louder and louder drowning out the voice of the people. 2010, some $60 million in dark money. 201 over the years it reached a billion dollars. 2020 over $1 billion in a single year. and now we have barry sayd, who

donated his company into the dark money network. this money spent without accountability is used to smear candidates. now, there is a saying, a saying i heard as a little kid. that saying was the lie gets half wade around the world before the truth gets its pants on. but in our social media world, it's more like the lie gets three times around the globe before the truth gets out the front door. i mean, truth is being hammered constantly by the smear campaign from dark money. so this is what we have -- a vote coming up on whether you believe in secret money smear campaigns or you believe in public accountability and preserving the vision of government of, by, and for the people. this is so important to our

future. i wonder what antony scalia, lying in his grave, might be thinking when he sees the outcome of citizens united, an outcome he did not intend. i have the experience of being the target of one of these smear campaigns in 2014. the koch brothers were bragging and held a meeting and they said, we are going to put a lot of money, millions of dollars, into an organization called freedom partners. and freedom partners, along with a network, is going to spend $200 million in the 2014 campaigns. and they came to oregon and the press reports said that they were putting $3.6 million into television ads attacking me. now, i was in a different position than many targets because the koch brothers had bragged about this money. so they did not take advantage

of the anonymity that they could have. i decided to call them out. i put up an ad and said, where's this money from? it's out of state -- it's out-of-state soil and coal billionaires who have come to our state and want to eelect my component because they share the agenda. and here's a the agenda they advertise. great investment for them, terrible choice for oregon. i was able to respond because in that case, the koch brothers had chosen to waive the secrecy. they wanted people to know what they were doing. they wanted people to tremble in fear over the fact that they could write a check for $3 million or $5 million or $10 million or $50 million. this is even more evil when it's secret because then you can't respond about the source and what they are all about. now, we have seen some recent examples.

the honest elections project -- what's that dark money up to? well, that dark money is up to trying to override article 1, section 4, of the constitution. they want state legislatures, without any influence from congress or from governors, to be able to write election rules. that's not what the constitution says. and in addition, they want state legislators to be able to ignore the vote in their state and reassign the electors for president to whomever they want. that's what that dark money group is doing. or how about heritage action. jessica anderson, the executive director, caught on video bragging about her organization's role in passing voter suppression laws in georgia. that's what that dark money is up to. they're trying to stop americans from voting. how un-american is that? how unpatriotic is that? how destroying the freedom and rights of america is that? that's what heritage action is up to in trying to destroy democracy here in the united states of america.

and then we had the dark money groups coming together and saying that they were going to have an under-the-dome type strategy to stop the disclose act. what is under the dome mean? it's a reference to the dome over the capitol. under the dome is about using the triple veto here in the senate to stop the disclose act. well, we twice had 59 votes to try to hold the debate on the disclose act, but not 60 -- one vote short. and now they're trying to do it again, use the republican caucus under the senate rules and under the dome -- an under-the-dome strategy to support the she -- the sleazy, terrible dark money attacks corrupting elections in america. and i say corrupting because how can an individual, if they can't see who's donating the money, if

they don't know what is true and what isn't because the highest percentage of these ads are actually putting fake facts forward, they're putting lies forward -- that's why they're called a smear campaign. if smear campaigns are inundating the airwaves, how can people make an decision? they can't. let's pass the disclose act. let's save the vision of government of, by, and for the people. and i yield to my colleague from oregon. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. let's see if i can get a podium. wonderful. thank you. i thank my colleague and i know senator van hollen is here as

well. and i'm going to be brief. and i particularly want to thank our colleague from rhode island because he has been relentless in terms of making this case day after day. and i want to put this in very personal kind of terms because all of us who have the on honor of sesqui -- have the honor of serving -- the honoring of serving in the united states senate can relate to this issue, and senator whitehouse has added add reform to his proposal that's very personal to me, and i think it embodies the accountability and the transparency that oregonians and people in minnesota and michigan and maryland are calling for. and here's how i would start it. a number of years ago i authored

legislation that millions of americans now understand is called stand by your ad. and stand by your ad stipulated that as an elected official or a candidate you would have to actually put your name behind these attack ads where you go after your opponent. and now day after day in these next 50-plus days we're going to see plenty of these ads. the law worked well, and it still is on the books today, much to the chagrin of some officials who would like to take a quick hit on their opponent, an official, or a candidate and then scam per off without -- and then scamper off without now

accountability. i do want to make clear because of the good work of the senator from rhode island, stand by your ad doesn't mean as much today because we now know the premium is on going for these secret, incredibly negative ads on your opponent because the people paying for dark money ads aren't required to put their name behind what they are saying. that is an extraordinarily strong hit against openness and accountability and transparency in our democracy. and oregonians and people across the country are rightfully disgusted by it. and it is extraordinary the lengths that those who are orchestrating these dark money

attacks will go in order to make their case when there's no accountability. now, i see my seatmate from the finance committee, and we have worked together for years to change the medicare statute that barred medicare from negotiating to hold down the price of medicine. and big pharma protected this negotiating ban like it was the holy grail. my colleague and i would come to the committee day after day and talk about, how is this commonsense? everybody in america negotiated in order to get the best possible deal. but we looked tax breakly in this -- but we looked particularly in this. big pharma and groups associated with it spent enormous sums of

money attacking me personally in washington, d.c., media, and there was scary music and there were attacks about how anybody who wanted these reforms was like a leech and taking away cures away from the american people, and the striking part of all this and why what senator whitehouse has had to say is so important, the ad wasn't even directed at me because it was in washington, d.c. now, madam president, i'm barely a household word in my own household, let alone in washington, d.c. and what was the point of these extraordinarily large sums attacking me in washington, d.c.? the point of it was to scare my colleagues, senator stabenow, senator van hollen, all my

colleagues here, because there was so much money at the hands of these extreme groups associated with big pharma that wanted to-and-mine a commonsense reform backed by millions of americans that medicare should negotiate. at one point someone said, there's so much opposition to this effort to negotiate. and i said, are you kidding me? the opponents of negotiating on medicare must be in a witness protection program because we can't find anybody. -- who thinks you shouldn't negotiate. but yet big pharma was willing to spend huge sums of money, dark money, not really to damage me politically because my constituents are in oregon, but to scare other senators. so people of course are going to get bludgeoned with these dark money ads a every time they turn on television, the radio, or watch a video online.

and i just don't think that americans should be forced to guess or wonder what special interest is funding these ads that come from murky groups that have these radical names like the coalition of prosperity and justice. we all know that they're not going tell you who they really are. and so my colleague from maryland has been very patient. and we had glitches in the schedule and we want to hear from our friend from michigan as well. i want to thank senator whitehouse for basically taking the standby-your-ad concept and kind of reconfiguring it in the disclose legislation. senator whitehouse's bill would require the heads of organizations or other unions to identify when they're behind

political ads the same way standby-your ad works under the original version of the law that authored. and remember -- and i want this to be the take away about this issue. senator whitehouse's proposal -- and extending stand by your ad in this kind of fashion treats everybody the same. this is quintessential good government. it's not about going after somebody on the right or somebody on the left. this is about common sense. it's not a radical left-wing proposal. the american people ought to know who's trying to influence their votes. by the way, when we authored the original stand by your ad proposal, it used to be bipartisan. and as my colleague from rhode island has mentioned of late, it's been the republicans who have been protecting dark money and protecting the basic kind of

disclosure that i think our system of government has been all about. the american people have strong differences of opinion on issues, no question about that. but i've had more than 1,020 open to all town hall meetings. what nobody has in dispute is that openness and accountability is what the american system is all about. so senator whitehouse, our thanks to you for spending years and years at us, because you are taking us in a significant way back to what i think used to be common sense, used to be accountability, used to be something that transcended the kind of thing that big pharma was doing early on, where they didn't even pretend, they didn't even pretend it was about an individual legislator. it was about scaring off all members of congress. we can do better.

senator whitehouse's proposal moves us in that direction. and i want to thank my colleague from maryland who also was trying to deal with the scheduling kind of challenge and look forward to working with him and my seat mate on the finance committee, and senator whitehouse, another exemplary member on the finance committee. mr. van hollen: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote. myself for up to ten minutes, senator stabenow for up to ten minutes, senator cantwell for up to five minutes, senator menendez for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without mr. van hollen: madam president, i too want to thank the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse, for his laser focus on the issue of disclosure and transparency. and i want to thank my colleagues here on the floor, senator wyden, senator stabenow, and senator merkley, who was here before, and others within our caucus. in fact, every member of our

caucus, democratic caucus, supports the disclose act. and we support it because the stakes are so high for the future of our democracy. billions of dollars that have crept in and now are gushing in to our political system to influence our elections poses a grave threat to our republic and to the future of our democracy. make no mistake, these are corporations and very wealthy people who are spending billions of dollars in secret money to influence people's vote so that they can get their way at the expense of the public interest. you've got a very few people with very deep bankrolls who are using their funds to try to shape our democracy and bend our democracy to suit their interests at the expense of everybody else. and as president biden said in

his remarks on this earlier this week, even foreign entities, foreign entities that are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns are engaged in these political expenditures, under current law use dark money, front groups to try to influence our elections and steer the course of our democracy here in the united states from overseas. that by itself should scare the hell out of every senator and every american. madam president, i want to talk a little bit about how we got here. how did we get to a place where the united states of america for elections, special interests can spend billions of dollars to influence people's votes without telling the voters who they are? make no mistake, they're not telling voters who they are because they don't want voters to know who is behind these ads. well, the story begins with the infamous 5-4 decision in the supreme court case of citizens

united. that decision opened the spigots and then floodgates to corporate spending. corporate spending in federal elections, that's when the supreme court said for spending in elections, we're going to say corporations are people too. corporations can't go into the ballot box and push the lever, but for purposes of influencing everybody else's vote, we're going to say corporations are people too. and that unleashed a huge amount of money into politics. the only way to address that part of citizens united is to have a supreme court that will reverse the terrible citizens united decision or through constitutional amendment. i support that, but that's not happening any time soon. but there is something that we can do right now and which we're going to vote on tomorrow, and that is the issue of secret dark money, because we can change that through our votes tomorrow.

after citizens united, what you began to see was not just more money, not just a gusher of money from corporations and corporate entities going into elections, but more and more secret money flowing into elections. and you can see the pattern here of how back in 2006, about $5 million a year going in secret money in different ways. in 2020, $1 billion in that year alone. so the trajectory is increasing by the year. and as my colleagues have said, we also have the situation where one individual just contributed $1.16 billion that's going to flow in subterrainan ways through our election process. one individual, $1.6 billion. now here's a point i want to emphasize. even in that really terrible supreme court decision, 5-4

decision in citizens united, the justices, eight of the nine justices in that decision called for more transparency in elections. here's what justice kennedy wrote on behalf of eight of the nine justices. and i quote, that the disclosure of political expenditures provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters, end quote. he went on to say, with disclosure, citizens can see whether their elected officials are in the pockets of so-called special money interests, unquote. this is justice kennedy. he voted for the notorious citizens united decision, which opened the gushers of money.

but he said as this money flows through our system, we have a public interest in making sure voters know who is spending that money. and he says right here that's important to know whether, for citizens to know whether elected officials are in the pockets of special interests. so this vote is pretty clear in former justice kennedy's terms, which is if you want dark money, you don't want the public to know who is supporting you in your campaigns if you support continuing dark money. so after that citizens united decision, the alarms -- alarm bells went off as they should and many of us said we've got a a -- to pass a law to require disclosure. let's make sure that voters know who's spending the money. back in 2010, i served in the house of representatives at the time, i authored the original

disclose act. my chief cosponsor was a republican, mike castle from the state of delaware at the time. and we passed it. we passed that in the house of representatives back in 2010. but when it came to the senate, it hit a brick wall of republican opposition. and i must say, given what republicans had said before the citizens united decision about disclosure, it was a complete 180-degree flip-flop and turn-around. because the position that the republican senate leader, senator mcconnell, had taken for decades was we don't need all these regulations to regulate political money, but we should have disclosure. we should have disclosure. in fact, when he was on "meet the press" back in the day, in

the year 2000, this was a hot issue because of mccain-feingold. and so he was asked why he voted no on one of these campaign finance provisions, and he said the following -- we need to have real disclosure. sond so what we ought -- and so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations so you include the major political players in america. he went on to say, senator mcconnell, why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure? well, i agree with senator mcconnell in 2000. we want full disclosure and full transparency. but what happened was as soon as the citizens united decision came down and a gusher of money started flowing through the system, including through corporations, all of a sudden, all of a sudden, hey, i didn't mean what i said about disclosure. i can have my cake and eat it

too. lots of money and nobody knows where it comes from. and in a twist of history, when we passed the disclose bill out of the house, it came to the senate, and the senate version of that bill got 59 out of 100 votes. every democrat voted for it. it would have been 60 except for a terrible twist in history, which is senator kennedy passed away, and senator brown took his place. and senator brown voted against cloture on the disclose act. but my colleagues, here's the fact. 59 out of 100 senators wanted to move forward there. and but for the antidemocratic filibuster, we wouldn't have secret money in politics today. but here we are, and we have to deal with it in the here and now. and it's interesting to hear the republican leader. he said back in 2012, after we

tried to move the disclose act, quote, on this floor, on this senate floor, he said dark money is, quote, a problem that does not exist. and then to take things even further, he rallied republicans. and so in the republican national platform in 2012, it read, quote, we have posed passage of the disclose act, by name. we don't know the american people to know who's spending this money. we like dark money in politics. so that brings us to today, because what we saw since that vote in 2010 and then those comments by the republican leader back in 2012 is this huge gusher of secret money flowing. and interestingly now, it has also caught the attention of some of our republican colleagues who have been

complaining about secret money in politics, complaining that democratic political organizations are spending secret money in politics. we know he distributed -- senator mcconnell distributed reporters an e-mail entitled democrats let the dark money flow and like its power. and like its power. and senator hawley tweeted about dark money from foreign groups, writing, and i quote, who is funding this overseas dark money group? big tech? billionaire activists? foreign governments? we have no idea. americans deserve to know what foreign interests are attempting to influence american democracy. unquote. this is senator hawley, the senator from missouri. i don't say this often on the senate floor, but i agree with senator hawley's question here,

and tomorrow he and every member of this body will have a chance to vote to say that, yes, we should know about what foreign entities and interests are spending money in our elections elections, because there is all sorts of money, in fact about $300 billion a year in foreign money being laundered through our whole economy, and we don't know how much of that these days is flowing into elections. as president biden said, we need to pass this to do that. and if you look at some of the titles of this bill that senator whitehouse has put forward, they're pretty simple. there are whole sections of the bill to get at the question of foreign money in our elections. i don't know why anyone is going to oppose that. so, madam president, here we are 12 years later after that

vote in 2010 that got 59 out of 100 votes. it would have had 60 except senator kennedy passed away. and our republican colleagues who are now complaining about secret money have a chance to work with us and vote with us to get rid of it, whether it's democratic money, republican money, somebody else's secret money. get rid of it. require transparency. that's what the disclosed act is all about. so this is another chance for every member of the senate to align themselves with the overwhelming majority of the american people. 80% support transparency disclosure and they do it because they know how important it is to our democracy. so let's vote for this, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. first i want to thank senator van hollen for his incredible work over the years and leadership both in the house and

in the senate and thank you for taking on this fight and working so hard to expose the bright light of truth and transparency about what is happening around secret money. and i want to thank senator whitehouse for your dogged focus on the issue of secret money influencing elections. thank you for all of your wonderful work. and to all of our colleagues who joined us on the floor and to all of our democratic colleagues, all of whom are supporting the disclose act. the members of this chamber have a choice to make, and it's really pretty simple. you can be on the side of the american people or you can be on the side of the rich and powerful. we can pass the disclose act, let the public know what's happening, put limits around it, stop all of this, or you can

vote against continue and vote with the powerful and the wealthy. the disclose act is going to keep our elections in the hand of voters, not the highest bidder. that's the bottom line. you don't need to look very far for an example of why we need this legislation. republicans have been talking about how a group received a $1.6 billion donation from a single donor, one man, $1.6 billion, and one mission, to put his finger on the scale of our democracy. if you don't think that guy is going to have an undue influence on our loakses in the coming -- elections in the coming years, i have a bridge across the straits of macinaw i want to sell you. this man is not alone,

unfortunately. in 2006 there was less than $5 million on dark money spent in our elections. $5 million. then in 2010, the supreme court handed down the citizens united decision that opened the floodgates and it didn't take long for the waters to rise. in 2012, more than $300 million was spent in secret money -- dark money in elections. and in 2020, more than $1 billion was spent in dark money in elections. and now we know in 2022 we have someone -- one person who has already given $1.6 billion to try to influence this election.

if you laid those billion-dollar bills end to end, they would extend around the earth nearly four times. extend around the earth nearly four times, that's how much we're talking about here. and we don't even know where all of this spending is coming from. but we do know this. as senator wyden -- chairman wyden spoke earlier, when we took on big pharmaceutical to lower -- pharma to lower prescription drug prices, not one republican voted yes. when we took on big oil to lower energy costs and tackle the climate crisis, not one republican voted yes. when we took on corporations that pay zero in taxes, not one republican voted yes. the american people deserve to

know why. how much dark money's coming in from those powerful interests to protect their profits? dark money could also be coming from foreign actors who wish to harm our country. what has been reported, though, again, is dark money is coming in from one really rich guy, one really rich guy who wants to make our nation a little bit towards his liking. american voters deserve to know who's spending huge -- huge, huge sums of money to influence our democracy. and under the disclose act, they will know that. it will strengthen the foreign money band to make sure foreign actors can't influence our elections. it requires corporations and other groups to disclose their donors right, left, democrat,

republican, disclose your donors and it expands disclosure requirements to online ads and other types of ads as well. all those campaign text messages that are blowing up your phone, you deserve to know who's sending them. these changes are popular, they're common sense, and they are really important. they're really important if we think america deserves to know who's influencing our elections. it's time to make sure our american democracy actually works for the american people. so, again, the members of this chamber have a choice to make. we can stand with the american people or we can stand with the rich and powerful. democrats have made that choice. i've made that choice. we stand with the american people who just want a fair shot to work hard and get ahead.

americans who want to know that this is their democracy and that it works for them, not just a few rich people. i urge my colleagues to support the disclose act. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i rise today to support the nomination of dr dr. arati prabhakar to be the director of the office of science and technology. since 1976, the office of science and technology policy has worked to ensure that the united states leads in science and technology to promote stem education and to make sure that our signs agency shares the common purpose of benefiting all

americans. dr. prabhakar is very well qualified for this job as an engineer, physicist, leader, pioneer, she has had a trailblazing career, she was director of the advance -- darpa, the first woman to lead the institute of standards in technology, and under dr. prabhakar's leadership, darpa kick started the response of an mra vaccine. under her leadership in this, she worked to extend the manufacturing partnership to boost the competitiveness of manufacturers, last year the partnership program helped our domestic manufacturers capture

$3.9 million in new sales. in my state alone that translated into over $886 million and more than 2,000 jobs created or retained. perhaps even more impressive back in the 1990's when dr. prabhakar was just in her 20's, she helped launch the darpa program that made essential leaps forward in semiconductor manufacturing technology. her program laid the groundwork for five generations of chip manufacturing technologies to help demonstrate the leadership right here in the united states. dr. prabhakar is now ready to lead again and now we are asking her to lead this important agency. we have just passed the chips and science act, which is a renewed commitment to domestic semiconductor research, manufacturing in u.s. leadership in the next generation technology.

dr. prabhakar has the exact experience we need to advise the president on semiconductor manufacturing on bringing the supply chain that she need -- that we need here in the united states. the chips and science act directs the national science foundation to address transportational research, before that dr. prabhakar was an important voice in this effort of a tech director, helping to shape the directorate on challenges. and this makes sure there is diversity in science to make sure that the stem fields are included and that we continue to grow a workforce that's needed.

although science is often the important -- the important aspect of science is not always thought of every aspect of growing the next generation, that's why i am so encouraged that dr. prabhakar is very committed to increasing the talent pool that we need in our country. for the first time in our country's history, the president has elevated the office of science and technology director, means there will be a scientist in the room for the most important discussions, and with the support of my colleagues today, dr. prabhakar will be the first woman and person of color to serve as the senate-confirmed ostp director. she will have a lot to do, including developing a whole of government, science and technology strategy for issues ranging from security to

commercial space exploration and a time -- and in a time of growing competition, ostp needs to tell the president and advise our leaders what we need to do to maintain our competitiveness as a nation. i know coming from an innovation state how important the office of science and technology policies strategies can be in helping our nation attract and keep the best and brightest and prioritize collaboration between academia and industry. since washington has been a stem leader, in fact i think we're the most stem-focused state in the nation that is by number of people involved in stem, our -- we know that this partnership between the existing workforce and the workforce of tomorrow needs to grow. so i know a former -- as a former darpa director, dr. prabhakar will help us with

this innovation of stem in america. moreover, i know that dr. prabhakar will on many issues help improve the participation of women and girls in the issues of stem. this is such a big, important issues for us today, but just being at the helm of the office of science and technology policy, being a woman, being at the cabinet level, advising the president of the united states, i know she will help deliver a message that all women across america need to be involved in the sciences to help our nation in the next phases of innovation. i'm so excited that she will be in this position. i ask my colleagues to support her as a devoted, experienced and exceptional public servant. these are the kind of people that we need in government. these are the kind of people that can make america stronger, safer and more competitive. i urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of dr. prabhakar as the director of

office of science and technology policy. i thank the president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i rise today in support of amanda bennet to be the chief executive officer of the united states 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's 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. bennet 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 corn dent in beijing where she came face to face with china's authoritarianism. she's seen how the state forces watch. 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 bo board of te

committee to protect journalists. in short ms. bennet 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'll also be an invaluable ally to independent partners including radio free europe, radio liberty, radio free asia. she'll defend the importance and integrity of radio and tv and she'll be accountable to congress in these efforts. it has been almost two years since the agency has had a senate-confirmed ceo at the helm. it is in dire need of steady leadership that supports independent medium. i enthusiastically support ms. bennet. i respectfully urge my colleagues to support her confirmation as well. finally before i yield the floor, i'd also like to celebrate the senate's historic vote today to approve the kigali

amendment to the month -- montreal protocol n. 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 has taken in more than 30 years. as wildfires ravage the west, hurricanes devastate puerto rico, and catastrophic funding 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, and we voted in a strong bipartisan coalition to keep american innovation and business at the forefront of the fran decision 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 and i want to thank my staff on the senate foreign relations committee, damion murphy, the staff director, andrew, the chief counsel, josh cline, josh checkman, julia and megan bartlet. they were essential in getting it to the committee and making a success. with that i yield the floor and urge a positive vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke 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 move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 1055, amanda bennet of the district of columbia to be chief executive officer of the united states agency for global media signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: 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 amanda bennet of the district of columbia to be chief executive officer of the united states agency for global media shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: