Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.