Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to celebrate the 175th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Guatemala and the United States. As we mark this milestone, I want to highlight the strength of the U.S.-Guatemala bilateral relationship today. Earlier this year, I led a congressional delegation to Guatemala, and we met with President Bernardo Arevalo. He is a leader who was elected last year by voters who were sick of widespread corruption. He ran by focusing on corruption and insecurity, as well as generating employment and promoting climate change policies. And I was impressed. Prior to serving in elected office, Arevalo worked in Guatemala's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He served as First Secretary and Minister Counselor in Israel in the 1980s and as Ambassador to Spain and Deputy Foreign Minister in the 1990s. For several years, Arevalo was active as a leader in civil society, promoting anticorruption initiatives. The Guatemalan President clearly cares--as do I--about upholding the rule of law, promoting democratic values, and combatting corruption. I believe that Guatemala stands at one of the most pivotal and potentially transformative moments since the end of the 1996 civil war. But the path it takes going forward will largely depend on the extent that President Arevalo is able to govern. I was deeply concerned by attempts to undermine his democratic election last year and by the concerted efforts by the previous government to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. Attorney General Maria Consuelo Porras led the charge in weaponizing the justice system against him. She criminalized the President's political party. She jailed journalists. She has forced former prosecutors and judges investigating corruption into exile. She continues to use the Public Ministry to protect her personal financial and political interests--working without any practical check on her power. This makes it difficult to combat corruption, to go after transnational crime, and to seek justice for human rights defenders persecuted under the previous government. And yet despite these challenges, President Arevalo has not given up. He hasn't given up on his commitment to rooting out corruption at home, as we have seen with the launch of the National Commission Against Corruption. He has continued to build on our strong economic relationship; the U.S. is Guatemala's largest investor and trading partner. Just this year, our countries held a High-Level Economic Dialogue with discussions across all sectors of society, including private businesses and indigenous groups. President Arevalo has also continued to have the courage to support liberty across the globe. Despite economic coercion by the People's Republic of China, he has maintained Guatemala's diplomatic relations with Taiwan. And on the question of migration, his government has been supportive of the Biden administration's safe mobility office in Guatemala. This effort has been critical to reducing irregular immigration on our southern border and providing legal pathways to vulnerable populations. I know we will continue working together to address the root causes of migration, whether it is corruption, poverty, violence, crime, or climate change. Now, I recognize these are immense challenges. And we are going to have a new administration coming into office here in the United States in January with very different views of America's role in the world-- especially with regards to our relationship to the Western Hemisphere. But for those of us who believe deeply in values-based policy making, for those of us who understand the importance of democracy and the rule of law, for those of for whom respect for human rights is paramount, we must not give up. Making the world a better place is hard, but it is not impossible. So whether you live in Guatemala--or in the United States--let us come together in mutual respect to address the challenges we face. And let us commit to making the next 175 years of our relationship one of prosperity, security, and peace.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge a colleague of mine and a valued member of Team Maryland, Representative David Trone. Since coming to Congress in 2018, Representative Trone has demonstrated a passion for tackling some of the most pressing issues that face our country and a persistent drive to advocate for the people of western Maryland. I am proud to have worked closely with Representative Trone over the years to fight for Marylanders on a variety of issues. The progress that Representative Trone has made in combatting the opioid crisis stands out in my mind as an example of his tenacity and effectiveness. Many regions in our country have seen the harm opioid and substance use disorders can bring to their communities, and western Maryland is no exception. When Representative Trone took office, he made it clear to his constituents that this would be a top priority of his. He quickly backed it up with action, by hitting the ground running in the House of Representatives. Representative Trone launched the Bipartisan Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Task Force, bringing together more than 140 Members of Congress from across the country and aisle. Twenty-six of their bills became law in the 117th Congress. Representative Trone serves on the House Appropriations Committee, Budget Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. Outside of specific legislative work, Representative Trone has played an important role in shifting the narrative to see addiction as a disease and a public health crisis, rather than a personal shortcoming. That is why he has supported mental health offerings like passing a bill to provide confidential mental health support to first responders. He worked to expand the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to include coverage for first responders whose deaths are a result of suicide or are permanently disabled as a result of traumatic service- related experiences. I will miss working with Representative Trone, but I am grateful for his service to the Maryland delegation. I wish Representative Trone, his wife June, and his entire family only the best going forward. I wish him only happiness and success in what follows his career in the House. And I thank him for sharing his dedication to Maryland's sixth district with the American people and his fellow colleagues.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Joe, we are letting you have the last word here.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask the Chair to execute the order of November 20 with respect to the Weilheimer nomination.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed 15 years ago this weekend. Sergei was born in 1972 in Odessa, in Ukraine. He was brilliant. He won the physics and mathematics Olympiad when he was just 15 years old. He knew right from wrong and was willing to stand up for what he believed in. Working as a tax attorney in Moscow, he uncovered a scheme that included the theft of $230 million of taxes by Russian corrupt officials. He not only filed criminal complaints against the Russian police officers involved; he testified against them. He named names. He did what any lawyer and responsible citizen should do. He believed that individuals should be held accountable for their corrupt actions. In response, they arrested Sergei. They held him in custody for 358 days. They refused visits from his wife and mother and telephone calls with his children. They denied him medical care. They tortured him, trying to get him to recant his testimony. Most people would have given in, but Sergei refused. So they had him chained to a bed as eight guards with rubber batons beat him to death. I want to read what his colleagues wrote about him in memorial. They said that Sergei ``wasn't involved in politics. He wasn't an oligarch and he wasn't a human rights activist. He was just a highly competent professional. The kind of person whom you could call up as the workday was finishing at 7 pm with a legal question, and he would cancel his dinner plans and stay in the office until midnight to figure out the answer. He was what many people would describe as the good face of modern Russia: a smart and honest man working hard to better himself and to make a good life for his family.'' And he was murdered because he sought the truth in Russia. When I talk about values of foreign policy, I think about the values of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr. President, the two of us have the honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I must tell you, our Presiding Officer is one of the great champions to advance human rights, a bedrock of our value-based foreign policy. America's strength is in its foreign policy. It is based upon values, supporting human rights, anti-corruption, democratic institution building--as compared to autocratic regimes that have foreign policy based upon transactional goals and media goals that they enforce many times by corruption and force. We see that today with Mr. Putin in Russia, as he tries to take over Ukraine. We have value-based foreign policy--our strength. Sergei Magnitsky was about values: his bravery, his honesty, and his willingness to stand up to a corrupt authoritarian state. Looking around the world today, we see war in Europe and the Middle East and Africa. We see a growing autocracy and kleptocracy across states like Russia and China, a rise of anti-democratic sentiment in traditional bastions of liberty. I believe one of the keys to fighting back against these forces starts with holding the perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. If we hold the perpetrators accountable, others will not follow in that path. If there is impunity and no accountability, it breeds more perpetrators that violate individuals' rights. The idea has informed how I think about foreign policy and the rule of law. And it also informed two pieces of legislation I am proud of writing in my time in the U.S. Congress: the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act and the 2016 Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. At the time of Sergei Magnitsky's killing, our main policy tool for penalizing human rights abusers and corruption was country-based sanctions. This is a blunt tool--useful to respond to major events like Russia's invasion of Ukraine or Iran's enrichment of uranium to nuclear weapons grade. If you go against the country, there is a penalty to be paid. But it is less effective to provide accountability for human rights violators which are individuals who are perpetrating those violations. We needed something more responsive, more targeted. And inspired by the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky's murder, I set out to write legislation to hold his murderers accountable. I didn't know at the time the profound impact the bill would have for human rights and accountability. The original bill targeted the individuals who were complicit in the jailing and murder of Sergei Magnitsky. It blocked these individuals from enjoying the benefits of America. It stopped them from traveling to the United States and stopped them from using our banking system. It gave the U.S. Government the authority to seize the properties. It stopped them from violating human rights with impunity. Magnitsky-style sanctions seem like a foregone conclusion today but not when we got it enacted. Although it passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, it was not an easy fight. Different parts of our foreign policy community were vehemently opposed. It was something. It was change. And change is hard. The executive branch doesn't like the legislative branch interfering in how they conduct their business. But that is our responsibility--the legislative branch's responsibility--to set the policies. We pushed ahead. In 2016, we expanded the bill beyond the reach of human rights violators and corrupt actors around the world. We have expanded it--the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Act--and we made that permanent. I want to acknowledge that one of the ways we got this done was because it was bipartisan. Senator Lugar helped me, as I was a freshman Member of this body in the Foreign Relations Committee, in getting the attention on the need for this legislation. The late Senator John McCain was my principal cosponsor and helped to get the original Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act included in a bill that could pass the U.S. Senate. And my good friend and the leader with me on the Helsinki Commission, Senator Roger Wicker, was principally responsible, working with me to get the Global Magnitsky bill made permanent with a place in the National Defense Authorization Act. The sequence was, 2017, Executive Order 13818 was issued to structure the implementation of the law and broadened the scope of the law. In 2022, we made the law permanent by repealing the sunset clause. In 2023, the United States sanctioned 78 foreign persons under the Magnitsky Sanctions Program. And as of November 7 of this year, the program has sanctioned over 712 foreign persons and entities since its inception. I can tell you specific examples. I can tell you about being in Bulgaria and being treated as a hero because it was the Magnitsky sanctions against their corrupt leaders that allowed their country to move forward with the reforms that the people of Bulgaria wanted. It meant real change. I can tell you about recently being in Guatemala, where we see hope for a democratic regime. It was Magnitsky sanctions that helped get to that point. These sanctions have real consequences because, you see, corrupt leaders want the protection of a country's rule of law for their wealth, even though they live in countries that don't believe in the rule of law. We take that away from them by the Magnitsky sanctions. It has had a profound impact on human rights, where now individual actors have to consider their own conduct, even when acting on behalf of the state. Their reputation, ability to travel, and ensure access to the assets are at risk. I have seen a lot in 58 years of public service, much of which I have devoted to human rights advocacy. I remain inspired by the heroism of Sergei Magnitsky and can confidently say that he did not die in vain. His death jarred the global conscience forever. Today, the Magnitsky name is synonymous with an approach by dozens of leading democracies to respond to human rights abuses and official corruption. The United States led on this issue. We were the ones who were able to get it started. When we lead and we lead with values and we lead on behalf of democracies, other countries will follow our leadership. Shortly after we passed the Magnitsky sanctions, there was action in the United Kingdom; there was action in Canada; the EU has adopted them; and now two dozen countries have Magnitsky-type sanctions. We have to do more. We have to figure out a way how we can coordinate these sanctions so we can really isolate those human rights violators and have a global approach to the imposition of the Magnitsky sanctions. There is more we need to do to fight corruption. So we have a lot more work to do. But I will tell you, Magnitsky is a name that strikes fear in the hearts of Vladimir Putin and corrupt oligarchs around him. As government officials and responsible citizens, we have an obligation to advance policies that respect human freedom and the dignity of the individual. That is especially true of those of us who live in democracies. I know that at times our task may seem difficult or impossible, but we must never give up hope. We must continue to have faith that our work is worthwhile. There were days where I thought the Magnitsky quest would not have any main consequences. I look today with pride. I am glad we did not give up hope, and we were able to get that law passed. Vaclav Havel once wrote: There is only one thing I will not concede: that it might be meaningless to strive in a good cause. I will never concede either. The struggle for human rights can sometimes seem insurmountable. Let me just share with you one of my experiences in life. I have been very fortunate to have had an incredible career. In 1987, as part of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I traveled to Germany and went to West Berlin. I went through Checkpoint Charlie to East Berlin. I walked up to the Brandenburg Gate and saw East German machineguns focused at me so that I would not cross back into West Berlin by trying to sneak across. I met with East Berliners who were desperate for someone to listen to their cause. They never gave up hope. They were living in a very oppressed country. They fought for their freedom. And we helped them. We didn't give up hope; they didn't give hope. Two years later, I returned to Berlin with a hammer in hand to help knock down the Berlin Wall. I have returned to Berlin many times since and see a unified city. We can never give up hope. What we do in this Chamber, the leadership we take, to go after those abusers affect real people and the future of real countries. We must not give up hope in striving for a good cause because if we do not give up hope, we will overcome oppression and violence and build a world that is safe and peaceful and prosperous. It is not only the right thing to do, it is the right thing for our national security. I am proud of the work we have been able to do in this Chamber. I thank my colleagues who have helped in this effort, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, who has been incredible. We have a lot more work yet to be done. Thank you for all your help. I appreciate your listening to my comments. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the four members of the 2024 USA Biolympiad (USABO) team. At the 35th International Biolympiad held in Astana, Kazakhstan, each of the four members were awarded a gold medal. I am pleased to honor each of the gold medal recipients: Jason Wang of Marriottsville Ridge High School, Marriottsville, MD; Bill Kexin Sun, Seven Lakes High School, Katy, TX; Suzuko Ohshima, North Hollywood Senior High School, North Hollywood, CA; and Frederick Song, Solon High School, Solon, OH. The USABO is the premiere biology education and testing program for American high school students. The program's mission is to stimulate the intellectual curiosity in young scholars and develop their critical thinking in laboratory skills and biological reasoning. The USABO is sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Education (CEE), a nonprofit organization that provides cost-free programs to high school students and teachers. The CEE seeks to nurture young scholars to careers of excellence and leadership in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This is an incredible achievement that speaks to the hard work and dedication of this Nation's finest young high school scholars who will pursue careers in STEM. I congratulate these exceptional students and look forward to hearing of their continued success.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Maryland delegation in introducing legislation to honor Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall. Today, we seek to honor the legacy of a great Marylander who had a tremendous impact on our Nation. Justice Marshall's devotion to civil rights and the rule of law continues to inspire generations of Americans. As the Nation began to atone with the dark past of racial segregation and slavery, Justice Marshall held firm in his defense of equality under the law, most notably as the attorney who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. His role in this transformational case was only the beginning of an outstanding legal career defending the rights of all Americans. Born on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, MD, Justice Marshall was the child of working class parents and a product of Baltimore City Public Schools. Thurgood was named after his grandfather Thorney Good Marshall, who escaped slavery in Virginia and found his way to Baltimore, which at the time had the largest population of free African-Americans in the country. In his early youth, he attended the P.S. 103, the Henry Highland Garnett School, the site at the center of our legislation. His early education was formative; he recalled that as punishment for misbehaving in class, Marshall's teacher made him sit alone and read and re-read the U.S. Constitution. He immediately took an interest in article III and the Bill of Rights, which sparked his legacy-defining pursuit of challenging the constitutionality of Jim Crow laws and using the courts as a tool for justice. Marshall had a reputation as a bright pupil, which he would continue to live up to in his years at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the first degree-granting historically Black college and university (HBCU), where here attended college. Following his graduation from Lincoln University, Justice Marshall would go on to enroll at Howard University School of Law after being denied admission to the University of Maryland School of Law on the basis of his race. Undeterred, Thurgood Marshall graduated from Howard University School of Law in 1933 at the top of his class. He was then admitted to the Maryland Bar and brought his talents back to Baltimore, where he would establish his own legal practice and volunteer for the city's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Just 2 years after becoming an attorney, Thurgood Marshall successfully sued the University of Maryland School of Law, along with his former Howard School of Law mentor and the special counsel of the NAACP, Charles Hamilton Houston, after the institution denied admission to another Black man simply because of his race. He would go on to continue working for Charles Houston in New York City and eventually succeed him as special counsel for the NAACP, before also becoming the director of the organization's legal defense fund. Over the course of his career, Marshall participated in several cases that established precedents for chipping away at Jim Crow laws in higher education, setting the stage for Brown v. Board of Education. During his tenure with the NAACP, Justice Marshall would litigate numerous civil rights cases, including 32 argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. A testament to his skill, Thurgood Marshall, proclaimed by many as ``Mr. Civil Rights,'' won all but 3 of those cases. His character and legal prowess demonstrated in his early career would lead President John F. Kennedy to nominate him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Subsequently, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated the seasoned then-Judge Marshall to become the 32nd Solicitor General of the United States, a role in which he defended the Federal Government's initiatives to integrate society and protect the voting rights of minorities. Mr. Marshall's outstanding career led to a nomination from President Johnson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and on October 2, 1967, he officially became the first African- American Justice in our Nation's history. For almost a quarter of a century, Thurgood Marshall served the nation honorably as an esteemed Justice who stood firmly with his principles and the Constitution. The impact of Justice Marshall on Maryland and our Nation as a whole is one that must be celebrated and commemorated. That is why I am honored to work alongside my colleagues in the Maryland delegation to highlight the historical site that facilitated the education and growth of an American icon and that continues to serve the surrounding community to this day. Public School 103 continues to endure and serve as a symbol of light in the Upton neighborhood of West Baltimore, thanks to the great work of Rev. Dr. Alvin C. Hathaway, and the members of the Beloved Community Services Corporation (Beloved), the nonprofit organization arm of Union Baptist Church. Just as it provided a space for the great Justice Marshall to blossom into one of our Nation's greatest lawyers and civil rights leaders, P.S. 103 has the potential to connect visitors with remarkable history that can inspire the leaders of the future. The Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site's affiliated area status would not only support the continued preservation of the physical structure where Justice Marshall spent his formative years as a pupil, but also allow Beloved Community Services the flexibility to serve as a dynamic community space for the surrounding neighborhood. Justice Thurgood Marshall continues to inspire and be an inspiration to generations of Americans working to form a more perfect union. Preserving Justice Marshall's alma mater, P.S. 103, is a fitting tribute to a great Marylander and highlights the importance of education in shaping our Nation's leaders. Thurgood Marshall courageously challenged the legacy of Jim Crow and left behind his own legacy as a steadfast champion of equality and the law. His tenacity, talent, and dedication to a more perfect union continue to inspire Americans of all creeds, colors, and ages.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Maryland delegation in introducing legislation to honor Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall. Today, we seek to honor the legacy of a great Marylander who had a tremendous impact on our Nation. Justice Marshall's devotion to civil rights and the rule of law continues to inspire generations of Americans. As the Nation began to atone with the dark past of racial segregation and slavery, Justice Marshall held firm in his defense of equality under the law, most notably as the attorney who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional. His role in this transformational case was only the beginning of an outstanding legal career defending the rights of all Americans. Born on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, MD, Justice Marshall was the child of working class parents and a product of Baltimore City Public Schools. Thurgood was named after his grandfather Thorney Good Marshall, who escaped slavery in Virginia and found his way to Baltimore, which at the time had the largest population of free African-Americans in the country. In his early youth, he attended the P.S. 103, the Henry Highland Garnett School, the site at the center of our legislation. His early education was formative; he recalled that as punishment for misbehaving in class, Marshall's teacher made him sit alone and read and re-read the U.S. Constitution. He immediately took an interest in article III and the Bill of Rights, which sparked his legacy-defining pursuit of challenging the constitutionality of Jim Crow laws and using the courts as a tool for justice. Marshall had a reputation as a bright pupil, which he would continue to live up to in his years at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the first degree-granting historically Black college and university (HBCU), where here attended college. Following his graduation from Lincoln University, Justice Marshall would go on to enroll at Howard University School of Law after being denied admission to the University of Maryland School of Law on the basis of his race. Undeterred, Thurgood Marshall graduated from Howard University School of Law in 1933 at the top of his class. He was then admitted to the Maryland Bar and brought his talents back to Baltimore, where he would establish his own legal practice and volunteer for the city's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Just 2 years after becoming an attorney, Thurgood Marshall successfully sued the University of Maryland School of Law, along with his former Howard School of Law mentor and the special counsel of the NAACP, Charles Hamilton Houston, after the institution denied admission to another Black man simply because of his race. He would go on to continue working for Charles Houston in New York City and eventually succeed him as special counsel for the NAACP, before also becoming the director of the organization's legal defense fund. Over the course of his career, Marshall participated in several cases that established precedents for chipping away at Jim Crow laws in higher education, setting the stage for Brown v. Board of Education. During his tenure with the NAACP, Justice Marshall would litigate numerous civil rights cases, including 32 argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. A testament to his skill, Thurgood Marshall, proclaimed by many as ``Mr. Civil Rights,'' won all but 3 of those cases. His character and legal prowess demonstrated in his early career would lead President John F. Kennedy to nominate him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Subsequently, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated the seasoned then-Judge Marshall to become the 32nd Solicitor General of the United States, a role in which he defended the Federal Government's initiatives to integrate society and protect the voting rights of minorities. Mr. Marshall's outstanding career led to a nomination from President Johnson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and on October 2, 1967, he officially became the first African- American Justice in our Nation's history. For almost a quarter of a century, Thurgood Marshall served the nation honorably as an esteemed Justice who stood firmly with his principles and the Constitution. The impact of Justice Marshall on Maryland and our Nation as a whole is one that must be celebrated and commemorated. That is why I am honored to work alongside my colleagues in the Maryland delegation to highlight the historical site that facilitated the education and growth of an American icon and that continues to serve the surrounding community to this day. Public School 103 continues to endure and serve as a symbol of light in the Upton neighborhood of West Baltimore, thanks to the great work of Rev. Dr. Alvin C. Hathaway, and the members of the Beloved Community Services Corporation (Beloved), the nonprofit organization arm of Union Baptist Church. Just as it provided a space for the great Justice Marshall to blossom into one of our Nation's greatest lawyers and civil rights leaders, P.S. 103 has the potential to connect visitors with remarkable history that can inspire the leaders of the future. The Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site's affiliated area status would not only support the continued preservation of the physical structure where Justice Marshall spent his formative years as a pupil, but also allow Beloved Community Services the flexibility to serve as a dynamic community space for the surrounding neighborhood. Justice Thurgood Marshall continues to inspire and be an inspiration to generations of Americans working to form a more perfect union. Preserving Justice Marshall's alma mater, P.S. 103, is a fitting tribute to a great Marylander and highlights the importance of education in shaping our Nation's leaders. Thurgood Marshall courageously challenged the legacy of Jim Crow and left behind his own legacy as a steadfast champion of equality and the law. His tenacity, talent, and dedication to a more perfect union continue to inspire Americans of all creeds, colors, and ages.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, over the past year, we have used our voices and influence to press for the protection of civilians in Gaza, for access to vital humanitarian assistance, to bring home the hostages, and to end this conflict. We all know that it is our responsibility to do more, Israel's responsibility to do more, and the international communities' responsibility to do more to protect innocent victims. But even as we work to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, we must be clear about our commitment--our longstanding, bipartisan commitment--to the State of Israel. It has been the bedrock of our foreign policy in the Middle East, a special relationship that was established in 1948 when President Truman, against the advice at that time of the State Department because there were more Arab States and just one Israel--against the advice of the State Department, President Truman recognized the State of Israel immediately after the United Nations vote. That special relationship is based upon two countries--Israel and the United States--both democracies, shared values. We share intelligence information, military information, and much, much more. That special relationship is important to Israel, and it is important to America's national security interest. We both benefit from it. Part of that special relationship is the United States is committed to making available to Israel the military arms it needs in order to defend itself from the dangers in the region. We have mutual adversaries--Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and many others. The threats are real. The adversaries are not just Israel's adversaries; they are our adversaries. Now, to the three resolutions that we have before us and how that relates to this issue, S.J. Res 111 deals with tank munitions. These tank munitions have a delivery date 3 years from now. These are replenishments. This is so Israel has the capacity to defend itself against the future threats that we know are in the region, that are real. It is not engaged in the current conflict in Gaza or Lebanon; it is for Israel's ability to defend itself against the threats that are real in the region. S.J. Res 113--mortar munitions. The delivery date is about a year and a half from now. Again, it is for the replenishment of their supplies. It is to make sure they are not caught in a situation where they can't defend themselves against future threats. These are the wrong vehicles for expressing ourselves in regards to the conflict that exists today, but if we are going to talk about the conflict that exists today, then a spotlight should be on Hamas, not Israel. The third resolution, S.J. Res 115--the JDAMs. This one, I really don't understand. These are precision kits that go on munitions; they are not the munitions themselves. Without the JDAMs, the precision of the munitions is not as great. What does that mean? It means it has a much higher likelihood of missing the target--collateral damage, civilians killed and injured. So it is counterproductive to the safety of the communities. I don't understand why we would want to prevent Israel from having the technology to have precision use of its munitions. To me, that makes no sense at all. But, as I pointed out, the spotlight should be on Hamas. Why are we in this conflict? October 7--brutal attack by Hamas. We don't hear a lot of talk about that. The hostages. We talk about the release of the hostages; they never should have been taken. Where is the outrage in the international community and where is the outrage here about Hamas holding hostages, some of whom are Americans? That is where the outrage should be. Hamas uses human shields. Yes, we bereave the loss of innocent life, but Hamas makes it much more likely that there are going to be the casualties of innocent life. They embedded themselves in hospitals and universities and make it so much more difficult for Israel to conduct a military campaign. Why isn't the focus on the terrorists? Then there is the humanitarian assistance. We have heard from our own State Department people as recently as today that the challenges for humanitarian assistance are made so much more difficult because of Hamas using it as a weapon to deny its own people humanitarian help, making it extremely difficult for the deliveries to take place. So I am somewhat confused. I don't understand these resolutions as furthering the cause for what the sponsor has indicated. The sponsor says that he disagrees that blocking these offensive arms sales will only embolden terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah as well as their sponsors in Iran. But if the U.S. Senate fails to provide the support to Israel now, what else would our adversaries believe? This would be a sign of weakness in our resolve to fight the terrorism in the region. It would be a gift to Iran. Let me talk about the cost. You hear a lot about taxpayer cost. Canceling these contracts--they have cancellation causes. This will cost the taxpayers money, not save the taxpayers money. I want to talk lastly about the timing of this, and I want to talk about--let me quote from the message we received from the Biden administration: These resolutions are particularly untimely and counterproductive as we are working to secure a cease-fire in Lebanon. U.S. officials are in Beirut now working to finalize this deal, a deal that is only possible because of the military pressure Hezbollah is under. Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would jeopardize those talks and put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment. These resolutions should be defeated. As the administration said, we urge you to oppose the JRDs, which will prolong the wars, not shorten them, put Israel at risk, and inject wind in the sails of Iran and its proxies just as they are facing a historic low point and looking for a deal. I urge my colleagues to reject all three of these resolutions. Let us continue to work together for peace in the Middle East. Let us work and isolate the terrorists in the region, Iran and its proxies. Let's work with our allies and partners in the region to do exactly that. Let's not make the matter worse by calling into question our commitment to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself against the future threats that are in that region. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 117, the motion to proceed. And I rise as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to relate to our colleagues why I am against this resolution and how we got to this vote. This body passed aid to Ukraine by a 79-to-18 bipartisan vote. It approved the necessary funding for Ukraine to be able to defend itself against Mr. Putin's aggression--Russia's aggression--and it allowed us with our coalition partners to be able to have a unified front against Russia's attempt to change borders by force. That legislation included the authority to the President to forgive and cancel debt. That is what President Biden did under the authority given to him by a 79-to-18 vote in this body. The President executed that authority and, yes, the Senate has the opportunity by a resolution to override that. But I would urge my colleagues to remember why we voted by a 79-to-18 vote on this floor to help Ukraine. Ukraine is the frontline in our defense for democracy. No one believes that Russia would stop if Ukraine were to fall with just Ukraine. We know that Russia has its eyes on Moldova and Georgia. We know the Baltic countries are very much in the eye of Russia. Poland is concerned, and Europe is concerned. It is in our national security interest to make sure that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is stopped and Ukraine's sovereignty is protected. Now, Russia is not alone in this. There is an alliance developing of autocratic States against our democratic systems of government. Russia is getting help from the People's Republic of China. They are getting direct help from North Korea. They are getting weapons from Iran. They are getting help from these autocratic partners. We are literally fighting for our democratic way of life. It is not just Europe that is of concern. If Ukraine were to fall, it makes it much more likely that the People's Republic of China would think that they could take over Taiwan and the West would just let them do that, and China could very well try to take that over by force. So there is a lot at stake here. Now, Ukraine is footing the burden. It is their soldiers that are on the battlefield. They are devoting 100 percent of their ability to the war effort, and they are asking us to help make sure that their economy can perform. So this debt relief goes to maintain their economy, to maintain their energy and agricultural sectors, and it would unlock IMF--International Monetary Fund--to Ukraine without cost to the American taxpayer. This debt relief makes sense from so many different points: to protect Ukraine's ability to keep its economy moving so they can pursue their defense of their nation, that we have an ally and friend that stops the aggression of Russia and says no to the alliance that is being formed against democratic states. It is a very small price for us to pay to maintain our democracy and to prevent the need for American soldiers fighting on foreign soil. I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in opposition to the resolution, quite frankly, I am perplexed with this one because, as the sponsor indicated, we are talking about the guidance system on munitions, which makes it precise, and despite what the sponsor of the resolution says, Israel targets military targets of terrorists. Yes, Hamas makes it more challenging by where they locate the targets--in hospitals, in schools, et cetera--but without the guidance system, there are going to be greater civilian losses. So, if you are concerned about humanitarian issues, I don't know how you can possibly vote for this resolution. In addition, of course, as the administration pointed out, they oppose this resolution because it would prolong the war, not shorten it. It would put Israel at risk and inject wind into the sails of Iran and its proxies just as they are facing a historic low point and looking for a deal. I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution. Vote on Motion

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. In opposition to the resolution, let me just cite the views that we received from the administration, which we urge you to oppose the resolutions which will prolong the wars, not shorten them, put Israel at risk and inject wind into the sails of Iran and its proxies just as they are facing a historic low point and looking for a deal. This resolution will only prolong the war. It will put Israel at risk fighting our mutual enemies, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the resolution. Vote on Motion

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.