Floor Statements

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, I rise in recognition of Constitution Week, recognized from September 17 through September 23.

Since 1956, Congress has recognized an annual Constitution Week in recognition of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. We also recognize Constitution Day and Citizenship Day on September 17, providing an opportunity for us to reflect upon and to learn about our Nation's founding document.

This annual recognition is of critical importance. Our Constitution informs our system of governance, creates individual rights and liberties, and expresses our collective values. Throughout my time in office, I have prioritized working to improve the quality of U.S. history and civics education throughout our Nation. Educating current and future generations of Americans about our Constitution is a critical piece of this.

While the flaws and omissions inherent in the original Constitution are widely recognized, one of its most important features is that it was designed to remain adaptable to future generations of Americans. Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph, one of the drafters, stated that the intention was to ``insert essential principles only, lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events.''

Of course, article V of our Constitution also lays out an explicit amendment process. Amendments can be made to our Constitution when proposed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, which equates to 38 States.

Today, we are in the unprecedented situation in which a constitutional amendment ratified by the required 38 States has not been formally recognized as a part of our Constitution. In 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final required State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which was proposed and sent to the States after passage by broad bipartisan majorities in 1972.

The ERA would constitutionally protect the equality of rights under the law, regardless of sex. The main clause of the amendment simply states, ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.''

Despite what many Americans believe, the only right explicitly guaranteed regardless of sex in the U.S. Constitution is the 19th Amendment right to vote. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been invoked successfully in sex discrimination cases, but the outcomes of these challenges have been inconsistent. The current Supreme Court's approach to the Constitution highlights the need for the ERA, given the apparent belief by some Justices that the Equal Protection Clause should be frozen in time in 1868, casting in doubt those precedents currently holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to sex discrimination.

Our lack of an explicit provision places us out of line with the rest of the world. Eighty-five percent of countries have an explicit prohibition against governmental discrimination on the basis of sex.

The United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not include an explicit provision in its Constitution, a marker that I take seriously as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On August 6 of 2024, the American Bar Association, which is the leading legal association in our Nation, voted overwhelmingly to recognize the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Resolution 601 urges government on all levels to implement the ERA now.

This important affirmation by our Nation's leading association of lawyers is in line with the position taken by many members of this body. In a vote on April 27, 2024, a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators voted to affirm the validity of the Equal Rights Amendment as our 28th Amendment to the Constitution and to explicitly remove the deadline that Congress included in the preamble of the resolution proposing the ERA to the States.

In both 2020 and 2021, the House of Representatives passed a similar joint resolution to explicitly remove this arbitrary deadline for adoption of this critical constitutional amendment.

It is important that we pass this S.J. Res. 4, which I have been pleased to lead on a bipartisan basis with Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to remove any ambiguity and to make it clear beyond a doubt that the ERA is a valid part of our Constitution. The passage of this resolution is long overdue. However, the fact remains that the Equal Rights Amendment has already fulfilled all of the requirements laid out in article V and should be recognized--today--as our 28th Amendment.

Women still face serious challenges ``on account of sex,'' and our existing legal framework does not always provide a sufficient remedy.

As the 28th Amendment, the ERA would serve as a new tool--for Congress, for Federal Agencies, and the courts--to advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

For example, we recently recognized 30 years since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which President Biden described as his ``proudest legislative achievement.'' Despite all of the successful progress through VAWA,

a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidated one of its key elements: the creation of a private right of action to allow survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse to sue for civil damages from their perpetrators. The Court struck down this democratically approved legislation on the grounds that it was outside of Congress's power.

It stymied the ability of our democratically elected branches to address the critical problem of gender-based violence. The ERA would serve as an explicit constitutional backstop for legislation like VAWA's private right of action that is intended to address problems of inequality, as well as serving as a tool in the courts.

Our Constitution is a reflection of our values, and no value is more American than equality. I call for the passage of S.J. Res. 4. I also express my strong belief that the ERA has fulfilled the requirements of article V and should be recognized as such.

Madam President, I rise today to highlight the critical importance of the health provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act,

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the deeply concerning trend of the criminalization of women's healthcare, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

I want to bring awareness to this week's Senate Finance Committee hearing entitled, ``Chaos and Control: How Trump Criminalized Women's Health Care.'' Now, more than ever, it is vital to codify reproductive rights and protect other hard-won civil rights as they faced renewed threats.

We must prioritize women's health and reproductive rights by passing comprehensive legislation like the Women's Health Protection Act, the Right to Contraception Act, and the Right to IVF Act.

Last week, ProPublica published two articles documenting the devastating and entirely preventable deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, two mothers living in Georgia. The deaths of these mothers were due to Georgia's strict abortion ban. According to 10 maternal health experts and doctors on a Georgia State committee who reviewed these two cases, their deaths were impacted by the State's abortion ban--an abortion ban that does not, as promoted, protect the life of the mother.

It has been made clear to the public that pregnant women across the United States are losing their lives for reasons that could have been avoided. Since abortion was banned or restricted in 22 States over the past 2 years, pregnant women have been forced to carry a pregnancy to term, travel across State lines to those without an abortion ban, and even face rejection from emergency room doctors. The right to abortion was deeply held by women for almost 50 years, and the right to access contraception has existed for almost 60 years. Despite the clear constitutional rights the Supreme Court established almost 50 years ago in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, each year, legislatures across the country have passed harmful abortion restrictions in an effort to impede a woman's fundamental right to make the best, informed healthcare decisions for herself and her family.

Reproductive freedom is continuously undermined and attacked, even though 80 percent of the public believe decisions about abortion should be made by women in consultation with their healthcare providers. I urge my colleagues to accurately represent their constituents, who overwhelming support a woman's right to choose, without the interference from Federal, State, or local governments. At no point is a politician more qualified to look at and assess your reproductive health than you and your healthcare provider.

As it stands, we are facing an extreme healthcare worker shortage because of the Dobbs decision. Providers have been forced to relocate or cease offering care altogether, leaving over one-third of women in situations where it is difficult to get abortion services in their State. Clinics and maternal health providers are stepping in to provide care for out-of-state patients who cross State borders to seek care.

In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) projected that, by 2030, roughly 3,000 fewer OB-GYNs will be practicing in the country. As of 2018, there were around 50,800 OB-GYNs, already too few to meet the country's rising demand. Many providers are afraid of facing criminal penalties. The criminalization of doctors providing reproductive care to women is appalling.

While doctors struggle to provide care to all their patients, communities of color are facing the largest barriers when it comes to accessing abortion care. Black women are three times more likely to die in childbirth compared to their White counterparts. Many States are facing maternal healthcare deserts, especially areas that typically serve low-income communities.

When abortion is illegal, those who want to terminate a pregnancy may be forced to go a more dangerous route. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that unsafe or illegal abortions account for up to 10 percent of maternal deaths worldwide. Candi Miller tragically died in her home after taking abortion pills she ordered online. She did not visit a doctor because of the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions in Georgia. Due to abortion bans, like the one in Georgia, many women grapple with the decision to manage their abortion alone, even when they would prefer to seek care from a healthcare provider.

The Dobbs decision claimed to hand abortion to the States, but we continue to see challenges to reproductive rights elevated to the Supreme Court. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA decided this past term was merely a temporary win for reproductive health, but this is not over. Anti-abortion advocates and supporters of Project 2025 will continue to attack access to medication abortion, a safe and effective drug taken by over 6 million women over the last 24 years.

I am proud that Maryland was the first State to mandate contraceptive coverage in 1998. My State has long been a leader in supporting and protecting reproductive rights. On April 14, 2023, Governor Moore announced that the State would begin to stockpile mifepristone. This is even more important now that there have been threats of weaponizing the Comstock Act against pregnant people. Maryland remains committed to serving as a safe haven for abortion and reproductive healthcare access.

Idaho's challenge to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is also far from over. The Biden-Harris administration was clear that States must comply with EMTALA and provide stabilizing care in emergencies, even if that care includes abortion. States like Idaho unjustifiably put women's health and life at risk when they prohibit providers from managing pregnancy complications. Patients have lost their child, their fertility, and even their organs. Idaho v. U.S. demonstrated that abortion bans harm all patients.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to dismantle barriers to women's health. The right to choose whether to have a child is fundamental, and it is a decision that should only be made by women in consultation with their healthcare provider, free of government interference. It is time to elevate the voices that truly know how much is at stake in the fight for reproductive freedoms. Lives are at risk, and we cannot sit back and continue to read about the growing rates of maternal mortality. Amber Thurman and Candi Miller's deaths should have been prevented. In their memory and that of all the women who have lost their lives due to their State's abortion bans, we must fight for a woman's right to reproductive care.

Madam President, I come to the floor today first and foremost to acknowledge the incredible bravery of the Venezuelan people.

On July 28, despite the Maduro regime controlling Venezuela's entire election apparatus, despite the issuing of arrest warrants against opposition campaign aides and disqualifying opponents, despite blocking nearly all independent international observers, despite the threat of violence from men on motorbikes who attacked people at opposition rallies, Venezuelans from all walks of life went to the polls to vote.

That took courage. And it took a leap of faith that they could take back their country. And had they been given the opportunity, I think it is safe to assume the nearly 8 million Venezuelans who have left the country to escape the chaos and repression in recent years, would also have voted against Maduro.

Venezuelans are tired of living under this regime. They have endured a horrific economic and humanitarian crisis. They suffer through electricity blackouts. Many in Venezuela don't have access to clean water and are instead forced to use open water in the street for bathing, cooking, and drinking.

One UN report found 96 percent of Venezuelans living in poverty. Government corruption is rampant, the regime has carved up the energy sector and given it to loyalists, and parts of the security forces actively participate in drug trafficking.

In the face of all this, Venezuelans took a chance and went to the polls. Predictably, Maduro claimed victory within hours. But thanks to the receipts from the voting machines, academics and news outlets ranging from AP to the Washington Post to the Guardian were able to analyze the results and have all concluded that the opposition won in a landslide. One election forensics professor at the University of Michigan found the opposition beat Maduro 66 percent to 31 percent.

Despite this, Maduro, without irony, declared victory, saying that the ``popular will'' had to be respected. More than a month later, he still hasn't released the official precinct-level results. And in attempt to distract from what he has done, he has picked fights with social media companies and has

moved the Christmas holiday to October. That is just crazy, and it reeks of desperation.

No one thinks he won--not the President of Chile who wrote that the results were ``difficult to believe''; not the Costa Rican Government who called the results ``fraudulent''; not the President of Colombia, who said Maduro should ``accept the transparent results, whatever they may be''--and indeed, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia released a very important joint statement calling for ``impartial verification of the results.''

Of course, there are those who still support Maduro. Vladimir Putin congratulated him. And the Cuban President said Maduro ``cleanly and unequivocally defeated'' the opposition.

But Venezuelans know the truth; Maduro lost. That is why, despite the clear threat of violence, they poured into the streets in protest.

Before the election, Maduro warned of ``a bloodbath,'' and indeed, his crackdown has been swift and deadly. At least 24 people have been killed and about 2,400 people arrested in relation to the protests, according to Human Rights Watch.

Just days ago, Mr. Gonzalez, the winner of the July 28 Presidential election, was forced to flee to Spain after Maduro issued a warrant for his arrest. Earlier this week, I spoke with Ms. Machado, the opposition leader who bravely traveled across Venezuela and mobilized a peaceful, democratic movement to change the country at the ballot box. Now, she has been forced into hiding by Maduro's campaign of repression and intimidation.

As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I condemn the actions of the Maduro regime, and I believe we must do what we can to support the Venezuelan people. That is why I fully support the leveling of targeted Magnitsky sanctions against those in the Maduro regime engaged in serious human rights abuses as part of this violent crackdown. That is why I am here on the floor today, to lift up the voices of the Venezuelan opposition, so their struggle for democracy is not lost to the next news cycle. And it is why I am working on legislation that I will introduce in the coming days--legislation that will add support for Venezuela's democratic institutions; provide humanitarian relief for Venezuelans; support a peaceful democratic, transition of power; support the restoration of the rule of law in the country; and contribute to the reconstruction of Venezuela.

Now, I know that reconstruction might seem like an impossible dream. It might seem like Maduro will never leave power.

I am here to underline a critically important point: Nothing is impossible, so do not give up hope.

I am not naive; I realize Maduro is desperate to hold onto power. I know that, after years of failed maximum pressure campaigns by previous administrations, Maduro is still there.

But that does not mean we should give up hope. Simon Bolivar once said: ``A people that loves freedom will in the end be free.''

For so many decades in my life, the Soviet Union seemed indestructible. Then almost overnight, it collapsed. I remember being in Berlin with my wife Myrna. My wife and I hammered at the concrete of the Berlin Wall that was covered in graffiti showing a crossed-out hammer and sickle. The collapse of the Soviet Union is an important example for those of us who are fighting for a better Venezuela today. It is an example of the good we can achieve, if only we have faith.

But if Maduro agrees to respect the election results, there is much work to be done. We here in Washington recognize that it will be the Venezuelan people who are at the forefront of change in their country. But we in Congress and in the international community generally, we have tremendous power to support the people of Venezuela and their aspirations for a brighter, democratic future.

So to my colleagues here in Congress: Be ready--ready to support, to engage, and to play a productive role in ending this longstanding conflict.

To those in the Venezuelan military and security forces who are ready for a new direction for your country, away from violence and repression: Lay down your arms and be part of the solution.

And to the brave Venezuelan people, do not lose hope that you can change things for the better. Do not give up hope that in the end your country will be free.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the 26 athletes with ties to Maryland who participated at the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics in Paris, France. Olympic athletes compete at the highest level of their craft, showing incredible determination and perseverance to reach their goals. Therefore, I would like to recognize the following athletes for their hard work and successes during the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics:

Katie Ledecky of Bethesda and alumni of Stone Ridge School

of Sacred Heart, who won silver in the 4x200m freestyle

relay, dominated the 1500m freestyle, won gold in the 800m

freestyle, and bronze in the 400m freestyle. Ledecky now has

14 Olympic medals, making her the most decorated female

Olympian in U.S. history.

Phoebe Bacon of Chevy Chase and Erin Gemmell of Potomac,

who also competed on the U.S. Swim Team, with Gemmell taking

silver in the 4x200m freestyle relay.

Alyssa Thomas, a 10-year veteran of the WNBA and University

of Maryland Alumni, who won her first gold medal during the

U.S. Women's Basketball final against France.

Kevin Durant of Suitland, an NBA superstar who won his

fifth gold medal during the U.S. Men's Basketball final

against France.

Thea Lafond, another UMD Terp and alumni of Montgomery

County Public Schools, who won Dominica's first gold medal

ever in the triple jump.

Aaron Brooks of Hagerstown and Helen Maroulis of Rockville,

who both won a Bronze Medal in their weight class of

wrestling. Maroulis is the first-ever American to win three

Olympic medals in women's wrestling.

Aaron Russell of Ellicott City and the Team USA Men's

Volleyball Team, who won a bronze medal in their match

against Italy.

Masai Russell of Potomac, who won gold in the 100m hurdle.

Quincy Wilson of Potomac, who became the youngest Maryland

Olympian and track and field gold medalist in the history of

the Olympics for running in the team qualifier for the 4x400m

relay.

Skateboarder Rudy Lilley of Ocean City, the youngest

Maryland woman at 17 to compete at the Olympic Games.

Grace Balsdon, Leah Crouse, Brooke DeBerdine, Emma

DeBerdine, Kelee Lepage, and Nike Lorenze, alumnae of

University Maryland, who competed for their respective

countries' field hockey teams.

Trevon Jenifer of Huntingtown, who won his third Gold-Medal

for wheelchair basketball.

Noah Hanssen of Ellicott City, who placed fourth in

wheelchair fencing.

Tatyana McFadden of Columbia, who earned a silver medal in

the women's T54 100m, her 20th medal.

Daniel Ramanchuk of Mt. Airy, who won a gold medal in Men's

T54 5,000m and a bronze medal in Men's T54 400m.

Jessica Long of Baltimore, who won a gold medal in the

women's 400m freestyle swim, making her one of the top

Paralympians of all times with 29 medals.

Zachary Shattuck of Mt. Airy, who won a silver medal in

men's mixed 4x50m freestyle relay swim.

On behalf of all Marylanders, I thank them for representing Maryland in the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics and congratulate them on this major achievement.

First, let me thank my leader for those kind remarks.

Mr. President, as the Senator from the State of Maryland, I am so proud to represent so many Marylanders who are Federal workers dedicated to helping their fellow citizens with the essential work that they provide. So I come to the floor today to speak about the threat Project 2025 poses to our Federal workforce and to our Nation.

This is a plan that, if enacted, would take America back to some of the darkest chapters in our history, from a nationwide abortion ban, to eliminating civil rights for millions of Americans, to gutting the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers and putting unlimited power in the President's hands. This kind of extremism is deeply disturbing.

As the Senator from Maryland and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I want to focus on one particular reason I think these ideas are so dangerous, and that is the way Project 2025 targets nonpartisan public servants in the Federal Government.

In the State of Maryland alone, there are over 150,000 Federal employees serving our country and their fellow Americans. They are dedicated, and they believe in public service, and they have always played important roles: repatriating stranded Americans who were stuck overseas when COVID-19 hit; leading negotiations to get the release of wrongfully detained Americans in Russia and Venezuela; coordinating the resettlement of Afghan refugees who supported our mission for over two decades; global drug prevention efforts; hurricane response training; emergency food assistance; counterterrorism. In every region of the globe and in every State of our Nation, public servants, our civil servants, put principle over politics in order to serve their fellow citizens.

So that is why we need to be clear-eyed about what Project 2025 will mean not only to our Federal workforce, but to our national security.

Project 2025 is a blueprint for a government that is so radical and disturbing even Donald Trump himself doesn't want to take credit for it. He said, ``I have no idea who is behind it''--well, despite the fact that six of his former Cabinet Secretaries helped write it.

Let me quote from the president of the Heritage Foundation, the think tank organizing the project. This is what he said about the federal workforce:

People will lose their jobs.

Talk about an understatement.

Project 2025 envisions Federal employees who will be politically loyal to an individual and a cult of personality rather than loyal to the Constitution and the letter of the law.

Our Federal workforce are career diplomats, career servants, career people trying to serve their fellow citizens. We do not want to politicize our civil workforce.

As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I must tell you, this is the kind of thing authoritarian governments do.

Project 2025 will weaken our country and put it in a place the United States has not seen before.

Now these ideas aren't exactly new. There is a long track record of smearing Federal employees as being part of the deep state. Back in 2020, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee produced a staff report detailing the concerning efforts the last administration had on the State Department, on its morale, and on trying to affect its professionalism.

A culture of fear and mistrust, vacant positions, nominees with extreme views and concerning records--unfortunately, that seems to be a glimpse of what could lie ahead with Project 2025.

The President and American Federation of Government Employees said:

Project 2025 will take away freedoms and rights from every

American, will hurt the middle class and working families,

and is a threat to our democracy.

They want to gut Federal workers' pay and benefits; they want to eliminate millions of Federal jobs; they want to make it easier to discriminate against people of color, women, and LGBTQ people. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to Veterans' Administration to the Environmental Protection Agency, they want to make big changes. They want to dismantle support for public education. They want to eliminate the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security.

These are extreme ideas. I believe these ideas are incredibly dangerous, and we must do everything we can to support our public servants. That is why I applaud the Biden-Harris administration and the Office of Personnel Management for issuing a rule in opposition to the previous administration's Schedule F classification.

I have also cosponsored legislation with Senator Kaine to codify the same effort.

As a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--now its chair--I have been working to strengthen its workforce at the State Department, USAID, and other international affairs Agencies.

From making sure our personnel have the ability to compete globally to increasing recruitment and retention--that should be our focus. Let's make our civil service more competitive with the best, most innovative people leading our national security, diplomacy, and Federal Agencies--not dismantling them.

At the time of its implementation more than a century ago, our merit- based civil service was an anti-corruption initiative. President Teddy Roosevelt, who is known as the father of modern civil service, wrote that its ``importance lies in the fact that it is the most powerful implement with which to work for the moral regeneration of our public life. No other force so strongly tends to increase the political weight of decent citizens.''

That was the motivation behind the civil service, and it is more important today than ever.

So I agree our Federal work employees are a tremendous force of good for our community. We don't acknowledge them enough on this floor. We don't do enough to help them and to support them and give them the resources they need. We certainly don't want to make it more difficult for people to serve our country.

That is why we must say no to targeting of American public servants for doing their jobs. No to loyalty tests. No to bypassing congressional oversight. No to taking our country backwards to a time before there were civil rights and reproductive rights, and no to weakening our democratic institutions.

I yield the floor.

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

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.