Reproductive Freedom for Women Act

Madam President, European capitals have grown far too accustomed to U.S.-subsidized security for way too long. It is an imbalance that has allowed Europe to enjoy constant protection without bearing the risks or the costs.

Today, as Washington hosts the annual NATO summit, we find ourselves at a crossroads. NATO, now turning 75, is an alliance with major issues. Despite the rhetoric from President Biden and his handlers, the simple truth is that we cannot afford to consider admitting Ukraine, nor should the United States be making overtures about future membership.

As NATO gathers on our soil, the United States needs to be forthright with our allies that the United States cannot sustain the massive levels of support for Ukraine, and any discussion of Ukraine's membership cannot be on the table.

We have challenges right on our front door that need our immediate attention: the crisis at our southern border and the credible military threat from China in our hemisphere and the Pacific. Those two things combined are things we have to address, urgently so.

The situation at hand demands that we prioritize our own borders and our own deterrence efforts in higher priority theaters. We simply do not have the luxury of infinite military resources, capabilities, or personnel, and we do no favors to our European allies by minimizing the painful reality that the United States must prioritize our own security needs. We need to be honest with our allies about the truth.

The European security environment has drastically changed since the 2-percent defense spending pledge was made a decade ago at the 2014 Wales NATO summit. Our alliance's refusal to commit to raising this baseline to 3 percent or above, which is necessary to meet today's strategic demands, places a disproportionate burden on the American people. Our military and diplomatic leadership have admitted that 2 percent is insufficient; however, commitments to increasing defense spending have not been made at this year's summit.

While European domestic budgets focus on massively funding free healthcare, shortened workweeks, social welfare programs, climate alarmism, and woke DEI activities, the United States still far exceeds the wealthiest European NATO allies in military contributions to Ukraine, as this graph demonstrates.

While Americans are pinching pennies, we are sending our tax dollars to fight in a faraway war. The burden must shift to Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London. Instead of confronting reality, however, the Biden administration recently inked a 10-year security agreement with Ukraine, promising that ``Ukraine's future is in NATO'' and asserts that there are no limits to U.S. aid.

This is pure fantasy. To start, Ukraine does not meet NATO's membership standards--not even close, not by a mile. Our defense industrial base and dwindling stockpiles demonstrate that there are practical limits to what the United States can reasonably do for Ukraine.

The agreement also leaves open the possibility that U.S. forces will be used to ``confront any future aggression against the territorial integrity'' of Ukraine, once again sidestepping Congress and the American people to put us on a path to a direct shooting war with a nuclear-armed adversary. This is armchair brinkmanship by politicians whose children won't be the ones dying. The supposed purpose of NATO is to protect its members and prevent war, not bring us closer to it.

Despite these obvious flaws, the Biden administration sought to make it deliberately difficult to terminate this proposed 10-year agreement.

My resolution condemns this 10-year bilateral security agreement with Ukraine. It affirms that the agreement has no force of law without Senate ratification and rejects it as a bridge to Ukraine's NATO membership.

The Biden administration cannot be allowed to skirt the Constitution, to relegate Congress to the periphery, or to tie the hands of future administrations to entertain the fantasies of

Ukraine joining NATO. We must prioritize our national interests and uphold the principles and protections of our Constitution.

It is time for Congress to remind the alliance and the Biden administration that we hold the power to make treaties, to extend NATO membership, and that overtures made to Ukraine and our European allies are not ``irreversible.''

Ukraine's membership is not set in stone. If Ukraine is in, the United States should be out.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 748. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the insights offered by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Maryland. I am grateful for his leadership in the Senate, for his friendship and all he does in looking out for the interests of our country, and I am grateful to have his insights today on the floor in explaining the reasons for his objection to the resolution that I have offered.

I would like to note that not one of these arguments negates the fundamental realities that we are dealing with here. Not one of them negates something very fundamental in all of this, which is the requirement in the Constitution, found in article II, section 2 of the Constitution, that says that the President ``shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided [that] two-thirds of the Senators present concur.'' That is a pretty significant requirement. So let's address each of these arguments that we have heard in the last few minutes in turn.

We have heard arguments about the fact that there has been significant bipartisan support for Ukraine aid. That doesn't negate this. I mean, first of all, providing material support--humanitarian or otherwise--to Ukraine is not the same as a treaty. A treaty creates a lasting international obligation, one that is intended specifically to outlast, as my friend from Maryland noted is the objective here, that is supposed to transcend one administration to the next, so it is not just a fleeting moment; it is an ongoing sovereign obligation.

For that very reason, article II, section 2 of the Constitution requires that the Senate ratify treaties before they may take effect. The President may

propose them. The President may negotiate them and even sign them, but unless or until a treaty is presented to the Senate and ratified in executive session by the Senate with a two-thirds supermajority vote-- it takes 67 votes with 100 Senators--then you don't have a treaty, and you don't have that lasting, sovereign, international obligation--one that transcends one administration to another.

As far as the argument that there has been transparency and that there has been outreach by the White House to Senators and communication, that is great. It is the sort of thing that ought to happen. It is in no way sufficient to provide a substitute for or an end-run around article II, section 2 of the Constitution--requiring that treaties be presented to the Senate and ratified only with 67 votes in a 100 Member Chamber. So that doesn't do it. That can't take care of that here.

Look, the point here is that there is nothing in what I am suggesting that would necessarily close any doors in the future. What I am trying to say here is that, if we are going to do this--if we are going to close doors, as is the intention behind this agreement--close doors to future administrations and to future Congresses to bind us to some kind of a lasting obligation as a sovereign nation to one or more other sovereign nations internationally--then we have got to follow the treaty process because that is what the Constitution requires.

As to the idea that Ukraine is the frontline--the frontline of defending democracy as, I think, was one of the arguments raised here-- our own obligation to protect our own sovereign borders and our own people, while at the same time containing and deterring other potential threats to the United States, such as those presented by China, have to come first. Those are the frontlines of our Republic--our own border, our own national defense, our own national security, the safety, the freedom, the security of our own people. That is the frontline that we are supposed to be focused on. That is literally our frontline, and insofar as that is incompatible with our efforts on another continent, those things have to be taken into account.

But there again, this is exactly the sort of thing that the Senate is supposed to consider not just in the abstract but in the context of a lasting, sovereign, international obligation in the context of treaty ratification proceedings, and that takes a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Executive agreements do not and constitutionally should not and cannot supersede laws passed by Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a lasting, sovereign, international obligation taken on by an Executive agreement made by the President of the United States alone, whether with or without consultation to one or more Members of Congress--there is nothing in there that says that that satisfies the constitutional obligation.

Now, if the wording of article II, section 2 or any other provision of the Constitution reads otherwise, then we would be in a different circumstance, but alas, we are not in that universe. Quite fortunately, we are not. It is with good reason that the Founders put in there the two-thirds supermajority requirement, and we can't allow that simply to be bypassed here, not for light or casual purposes, not even for great purposes.

No matter how great our purposes are, no matter how noble one's intentions might be in the administration, in the Senate, or otherwise, one can't get around this simple fact that what we are talking about here is, for all practical purposes, a treaty, and we are being asked to treat it as such. That requires two-thirds. We don't have that here.

So no matter how much bipartisan support, no matter how much flowery rhetoric, no matter how much good that can be done, no matter how evil Vladimir Putin is, that still doesn't change our constitutional realities. We have each been sworn into office under circumstances where, pursuant to another provision of the Constitution, we are required to take an oath to the Constitution itself. Our oath requires nothing less than that we honor this and that we not pretend that we can just circumvent all of this simply by calling something an Executive agreement--no matter how justified by the circumstances we may want it to be.

Look, at the end of the day, we have to come to grapple with the fact that we are $35 trillion in debt and that we face threats around the world, including and especially from China--China, which is gaining, increasingly, a foothold in our own hemisphere and in country after country throughout Latin America. China is gaining a physical presence, in addition to a more and more robust commercial arrangement, in addition to China's investment in so-called dual-use technologies, which in many circumstances have military purposes behind them. It is one of many policy reasons why we have got to be focused on China.

Insofar as we deplete our own resources in continuing to honor an obligation to another country in another hemisphere, we have got to take those things into account. It is one of many things that we have got to consider before taking on a treaty obligation. Make no mistake, this is a treaty obligation.

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as having asked the question rhetorically: If you count the tail of a dog as a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

People would, apparently, routinely--the uninitiated at least-- respond by saying: Well, five legs.

And he would say: No. It is still four legs. Just because you call the tail of a dog a leg, it doesn't make it so.

Just because you call an Executive agreement a treaty and ask people to treat it as if it were a treaty doesn't make it so.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as NATO's Washington summit draws to a close today, there is clearly tremendous resolve among many of our allies to make the transatlantic alliance fit for purpose for another 75 years. But a strong and effective NATO has always required strong and effective American leadership, and here at home, there is reason for cautious optimism that support for leadership on collective defense is widespread.

Last month, the Reagan Institute released the findings of its latest poll on the American people's views of global issues. Here is what it found: A majority of Americans support ``a more engaged U.S. foreign policy'' and hold favorable views of the NATO alliance and support lethal assistance to Ukraine. Despite the media spending years amplifying views from the fringes of our politics, a majority of Republicans believe that ``U.S. involvement in international events'' benefits America.

When asked recently whether peace, prosperity, and security were products of American leadership and sacrifice--listen to this--more Republicans than Democrats actually agreed with that.

Here is the kicker: They are not just telling this to pollsters; they are actually demonstrating it at the ballot box. By massive, double- digit margins, Republican primary voters have picked candidates who supported the national security supplemental earlier this spring. Let me say that again. Not a single Republican incumbent who voted to help America's friends resist authoritarian aggression and rebuild the arsenal of democracy lost their primary. Not one lost their primary. Across the country, voters rejected fringe candidates who peddled isolationist pablum and voted instead for American leadership.

The way Speaker Johnson put it earlier this week, he has had people come up to him at events in 31 different States in recent months to say the same thing: We are glad Congress delivered the supplemental.

So, Mr. President, it can often seem like the loudest voices in Washington are the ones that bemoan the responsibilities of American leadership while enjoying the peace and prosperity it underwrites, but these voices are increasingly estranged from the views of most Americans. The American people know instinctively that leadership on the world stage isn't some handout to allies and partners; it is an investment--an investment--in our own security. They know this leadership is what preserves the U.S.-led order that has underpinned peace and prosperity for decades. Now they just need a President who is willing to exercise that leadership.

For years, the American people watched the Biden administration dither and wring its hands over fears that standing with a sovereign democracy might invite escalation from a tyrant who was already conducting a full-scale war of conquest. Since last fall, they have heard the President insist in one breath that America's commitment to a close ally was ironclad and then withhold urgent assistance in another.

It is well and good to talk about American leadership, but talk is cheap. This week would have been a great opportunity for the Commander in Chief to start backing up his words with firm commitments to start investing seriously--seriously--in hard power. It should have been the week the Democratic leader brought the NDAA up for Senate consideration. It could have been a great week to lead.

Fortunately, the most successful military alliance in history has had some strong leadership in Brussels with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. I am deeply grateful for his tireless work on both urgent and

long-term challenges facing the alliance and for his deep devotion to the cause of collective defense.

The Secretary General took office months--just months--after Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine back in 2014, and after a pivotal decade, he will leave the alliance with renewed clarity and resolve to face even graver Russian aggression and linked authoritarian threats all around the world.

For 10 years, he has worked relentlessly to expand allies' focus to include serious challenges emanating from beyond NATO's borders.

Recognizing the links between major threats to global security, he has improved the alliance's engagement with critical Indo-Pacific nations like Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Just yesterday, he led allies in making clear that China is the ``decisive enabler'' of Russia's war against Ukraine and that ``the PRC cannot enable the largest war in Europe in recent history without this negatively impacting its interests and reputation.''

He has successfully expanded NATO, most recently welcoming Sweden and Finland as highly capable additions to our ranks.

In the face of Russian aggression, the Secretary General has been an extraordinarily effective advocate and spokesman for collective defense, rallying renewed investment from allies and leading the most significant NATO rearmament since the Cold War.

As he navigated the predictably diverse and spirited views of dozens of allies, the Secretary General demonstrated a keen appreciation for America's legitimate, longstanding, and bipartisan concerns about burden-sharing across the alliance and has repeatedly urged allies to take on more responsibility for our shared security.

On a personal note, I am immensely grateful for the time the Secretary General and I have spent working closely together. I have appreciated his candor, his professionalism, and his devotion to our common cause. I was particularly proud to welcome him to address a joint meeting of Congress earlier in his term.

As he departs his post, Secretary General Stoltenberg should take great pride in the historic accomplishments of his tenure and remain optimistic, as I am, in the course he has set for the alliance. He has the gratitude of allies and partners all across the free world, and he will leave big shoes for his successor, Mark Rutte, to fill.

Nomination of Sarah Netburn

Mr. President, now on another matter, I have spoken before about the New York magistrate judge with a bad habit of engaging in political activism from the bench and lying about it under oath. Unfortunately, the red flags on Judge Netburn's record aren't limited to the inappropriate actions she does commit; there is also the important work she has inexplicably chosen to ignore.

Take it from the family members of victims of 9/11 who wrote recently to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. As these loved ones sought a small piece of justice for the lives that terrorist killers snuffed out, Judge Netburn failed to rule on the unopposed motions they submitted that would have entitled them to participate in the next round of compensation for grieving families.

As they put it:

We cannot understand how a Magistrate Judge could treat 9/

11 family members so callously or so blithely disregard her

duties.

Mr. President, I have posed this question before on another of the administration's nominees, Nancy Maldonado. But I will ask it again: Why on Earth do our Democratic colleagues continue to entertain lifetime promotions for nominees with a demonstrated inability to do the job?

This sort of gross negligence is damning. It is disqualifying. And, frankly, the Netburn nomination isn't worth another second of the Judiciary Committee's time, let alone the Senate's.

Inflation

Mr. President, on one final matter, cumulative inflation since President Biden took office now sits at 21 percent, and working families across America are still feeling the pinch in their wallets, especially when it comes to basic necessities like housing.

In New Jersey, one man who has watched his rent soar said:

I thought things were going to taper off, but it doesn't

appear to be tapering.

In my State of Kentucky, one resident said he was ``sticker-shocked'' at the skyrocketing costs of homeowners' insurance, property taxes, and utility bills. And he is certainly not alone. One survey showed nearly one in five homeowners could not afford a $500 emergency repair on their home.

Last month, 46 percent of Americans reported that they are struggling to keep pace financially, and only 25 percent of this group said they planned on supporting President Biden.

The American people know which party ignored the warnings of top economists, lit money on fire with reckless taxing-and-spending sprees, and fueled the worst inflation this country has seen since the Carter administration. The American people are sick and tired of Bidenomics. I expect they will have more to say about it this November.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday was a very sad day for women in America. Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that simply expressed support for a woman's right to choose. That is it; no more, no less.

Supporting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions should have been one of the easiest ``yes'' votes we have taken all year. By voting no, Republicans told every woman in America: ``Your body, our choice.''

Republicans are saying ``We don't care'' to all the women who live in States where reproductive rights are almost gone, from Texas to Florida, to Alabama, and beyond.

This is the terrible legacy of the Senate Republicans and the Trump administration: They cleared the way for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.

Years ago, Donald Trump himself said overturning Roe was part of the plan. He said:

[I]f we put another two or . . . three justices on [the

Supreme Court]--that will happen.

And then, Senate Republicans--even many who don't abide by the MAGA philosophy--just laid down and voted for all of the President's nominees.

To this day, Senate Republicans keep doubling down and tripling down on undermining women's rights, despite so much blowback from the American people. Senate Republicans voted no on protecting contraception. They voted no on protecting IVF. And they voted no again yesterday on supporting the right to choose.

So let me say to America: Do you want to know who is on your side protecting abortion and women's rights? It is the Democrats. Every Republican--with one or two exceptions--has universally voted to take away women's rights. That is the truth of it.

Our Republican colleagues can run, but they can't hide. They are voting against women because extreme MAGA groups are pushing them to do it or maybe because of belief. Either way, they are out of touch with America.

Now, for all the chaos and disaster of the first Trump Presidency, it pales in comparison to the threat of a second Trump Presidency. We have all heard about the policy platform, 2025, drafted by the Heritage Foundation--a project overseen by former Trump officials and advisers and appointees. It is a manifesto for the second Trump Presidency.

What does it do? The Trump manifesto lays a groundwork for a nationwide abortion ban. That is the heart and soul of the Republican Party. That is where they always go when they are in power, folks. When they are not in power, they say some words here and there. When they are running for office, they try to run away from how they vote and how they feel. Then they come here, and they vote to roll over women's rights again and again and again. And each time they do it, it becomes more extreme and more extreme. And that is just the beginning on the issues.

The Trump manifesto, 2025, calls for the most conservative agenda America has ever seen. It calls for more tax cuts for the very wealthy, more tax cuts for corporate elites, more tax cuts for megacorporations. It calls for reversing Democrats' clean energy agenda while empowering the Nation's biggest oil and gas polluters. And the Trump manifesto even calls for silencing and attacking all of Donald Trump's political opponents.

Can you imagine? It is like a dictatorship. It is like a dictatorship, with nothing--Trump says: ``I am going to prosecute people''--no evidence. Wow. What happened to rule of law in this

grand country? What happens to the visions of the Founding Fathers when Donald Trump and the MAGA Court take over?

The hard right is done speaking euphemisms. They are smelling blood. They are saying it straight to our faces: If you disagree with Donald Trump, watch your back. It is bone-chilling. It is un-American. It is dangerous for our democracy.

The Trump manifesto is an autocrats' dream. If MAGA Republicans get the chance to act on the Heritage Foundation's ideas, the damage to the America we all know and love may well be irreversible. We will never get it back. Our children and grandchildren will live in a less grand country than we have lived in. The destruction would be unthinkable, and it would betray everything America has represented for 248 years.

U.S. Supreme Court

Mr. President, on SCOTUS, above the entrance to the Supreme Court are these words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

Last week, the conservative Justices put some new writing on those walls, figuratively: ``The President of the United States is above the law.'' Instead of ``Equal justice under the law,'' they replaced it with ``The President of the United States is above the law.''

In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, Donald Trump and his allies conspired for weeks to undermine the will of the people and halt the peaceful transfer of power. These efforts culminated in the violent insurrection on January 6. These are the facts. Many of us in the Senate lived through it. I was within 30 feet of the hooligans who invaded the Capitol.

No free Nation can condone a tyrant who abuses his office to try and cling to power, but that is, in effect, what the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has done. By ruling Donald Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as President after the 2020 election, the conservative majority has violated the most basic premise of our Constitution that no man is above the law.

Most Americans will see what the Court did and think it was grossly political, a shameless attempt to help Donald Trump out.

I worry that over time, Americans will increasingly lose trust in what the courts say. They have already begun to lose that trust with these rightwing MAGA decisions, very few of them founded in any precedent at all. It could be the unraveling of trust in our democratic institutions.

The good news is that the Constitution provides a remedy to the Supreme Court's terrible decision: Congress has the authority to exercise strong checks on the judiciary through legislation. We should look precisely into that. One possible avenue: clarifying that Donald Trump's election-subversion acts do not count as official acts of the Presidency. Such a notion should hardly be controversial, and I am working with my colleagues on legislation to see what kind of proposals would be appropriate.

We were all taught in grade school that there are no kings here in America, but what the conservative Justices have done is placed a crown on the head of Donald Trump. They declared, in effect, the same thing Nixon told David Frost in 1977 when he said--this is what Nixon said, chased out of office for potential criminal acts:

When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.

That is going to be the new ``rule of law'' in America with these Justices? What a bone-chilling proposition. If future Presidents no longer fear prosecution for their conduct in office, then what the heck is going to rein them in? One election every 4 years? That is cold comfort if a corrupt President can use their office to undermine elections in the first place. It is a catch-22, a very evil one. It is autocracy 101. What if future Presidents order the DOJ to arrest election workers? What if they escalate their attacks on the press? What if they take bribes in exchange for favors or money? What if, in each of these instances, they claim they were acting in an official capacity? America would be in a state of constitutional pandemonium.

The American people are tired of Justices who think they are beyond accountability. We in Congress should be open to sensible, reasonable solutions to restore the checks and balances that the MAGA Court has taken away.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, we are going to vote on a bill that offers a simple statement of values: Do you support a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions?

For the vast majority of Americans, the answer is yes--without question. We know that because the American people have been speaking out loudly and repeatedly and at every opportunity to oppose Republicans' extreme abortion bans.

The record here is remarkable and unmistakable: Since Trump and Republicans succeeded at overturning Roe v. Wade and ripping away a constitutional right from our daughters and granddaughters, every single time abortion rights have been on the ballot, abortion rights have won--every time.

But the American people have not just been speaking with their own votes; they have been using their voices and sharing their own, personal stories of the nightmares that Republicans' abortion bans have put them through: women denied medical care for a miscarriage because of abortion bans; women turned away from hospitals because their doctors' hands were tied until they lost over half their blood, until their husbands found them unconscious on the floor, until the only option was an emergency hysterectomy or, tragically, until it was simply too late; children who couldn't get abortion care after being raped; a teenager delivering a baby, while clutching a teddy bear, being forced through a pregnancy by Republican politicians.

This isn't some dystopian prediction. This has all happened recently in the United States of America because of Donald Trump and Republicans' anti-abortion extremism.

Just last month, The New York Times profiled the story of one mother in Idaho who woke up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. She was leaking amniotic fluid. She went to the emergency room. She was told there was nothing they could do to help. ``Sorry.'' Because of Idaho's extreme abortion ban, it meant that any doctor who gave her the abortion care she so desperately needed would be risking the loss of his medical license and jail time and heavy fines. The best they could do was give her an emergency flight to another State. And when she arrived, nurses remembered her saying: I just need to stay alive so I can be around for my two other kids.

That same hospital in Idaho has already had to airlift six pregnant women out of the State for emergency abortion care this year. That is just one hospital in one State and one horrific variation of the many nightmares that are happening on loop across the country as a direct result of the Republicans' abortion bans.

I am going to keep saying it: A forced pregnancy does not have to make headlines to make someone's life a living hell.

This is not an issue that Republicans can run away from no matter how much they try to.

Donald Trump--a convicted felon and a liar--is trying to tell us he doesn't know anything about Project 2025. That is the playbook that has been written by some of his top advisers for him. He may as well be saying he has no idea who named Trump Tower. We all know Donald Trump ended Roe v. Wade. We all know Republicans championed that for decades, and we know that Trump will absolutely ban abortion nationwide.

Republicans do not get to pretend they support the health of the mother while ignoring the horror stories happening today across the country and urging the Supreme Court to rule against ensuring abortion is available in emergencies.

Republicans do not get to pretend that they support IVF and birth control while championing a national fetal personhood bill and voting down bills to protect the right to IVF and birth control.

Republicans do not get to pretend they only want State politicians controlling women's most personal decisions while supporting national abortion bans, including the fetal personhood bill I just mentioned; supporting efforts to strike down access to medication abortion nationwide; blocking efforts to protect women who might travel out of State for care; and even blocking protections for doctors in States like mine where abortion is legal.

I cannot stress enough how transparently unserious it is for Trump and Republicans to pretend they are somehow returning abortion to the people when, in reality, they are doing the exact opposite. Republicans are giving politicians power that once belonged to individual women-- letting politicians force women to stay pregnant--and they are trying to sell that as giving people a bigger voice on this issue.

Do Republicans really think Americans are that stupid? Do Republicans really think they can take away a constitutional right and convince us it is a win for freedom? That is insulting.

Here is an idea: Do you want to really give the people a say on abortion? How about you let each person decide with their doctors what is right for them? How is that for small government? How is that for letting people decide?

If Republicans really want to let people make their own decisions on abortions, that is news to me. It would certainly be news to the countless women who have had that choice ripped away from them by Republican politicians over the past 2 years.

But they have a chance to prove it right here, today, right now, when we vote on my Reproductive Freedom for Women Act. This is a plain up- or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. It doesn't force anything. It doesn't cost anything. It is, actually, just a half-page bill simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their healthcare. Seriously, that is it. It is as simple as it gets.

If you care at all--even the tiniest bit--about protecting women's access to healthcare and allowing women to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, you should support this bill.

Now, make no mistake, I am not holding my breath here today, but I am going to be holding Republicans accountable. Donald Trump is trying to rewrite his abortion record, but I will not let him or anyone else off the hook. If Republicans are going to force women to stay pregnant, we are going to force them to be honest with the American people about their extreme position.

By the way, Democrats are going to keep fighting to restore the rights the American people have been so clear that they want back.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise at a time of widespread and acute peril for the national security of the United States and for America's allies. Led by China, our enemies and our adversaries--Russia, Iran, North Korea--are actively cooperating to target us and our allies all over the world. In extreme cases, they seek nothing less than the physical annihilation of the countries they are targeting.

In Europe, Russia has launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Asia, China is engaged in day-by-day aggression against our allies and is threatening another full-scale invasion of Taiwan. And in the Middle East, Israel is fighting for its survival in the face of a war of extermination being waged against it by the Iranian regime. October 7 was the worst 1-day mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. Iran and its terrorists have attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip, from Lebanon, from Syria, from Judea and Samaria, from Yemen, from Iraq, and from Iran.

And what has the Biden administration's policy been? Since the opening days of this administration, they have pursued an obscene policy of denying weapons to our allies while allowing resources to flow to our enemies.

They immediately halted arms to our Arab allies that they were using against Iran's Houthi terrorists while lifting sanctions simultaneously on the Houthi terrorists. The Houthis immediately launched a vast offensive and today are significantly blocking shipping through the Red Sea. The administration denied critical weapons such as ATACMS to Ukraine at a period that they could have stalled Russia's offensive, providing both time and space for Iran to flood drones to be used by Russian forces against Ukraine.

And, of course, the Biden administration flooded unaccountable hundreds of millions of dollars into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, which they knew would benefit Hamas. Joe Biden sent that money to Gaza, even though he was warned that the money would inevitably go to Hamas and be used for terrorism.

I joined 19 Senators in making that point explicitly: If you send this money to Gaza, it will be used by Hamas for terrorism. And we now know that the Biden administration agreed with me. The Biden administration concluded that it was ``highly likely''--that is their assessment--``highly likely'' that the money going to Gaza would be used by Hamas for terrorism.

Now, ordinarily, under U.S. anti-terrorism law, that is the end of the matter. If it is highly likely the money will be used for terrorism, you don't send it.

Do you know what they did instead? They waived our anti-terrorism law and said: Send it anyway.

I guess they are OK if Hamas uses U.S. dollars to murder Israelis because that is exactly what happened.

After October 7, the administration didn't change. Even after October 7, the Biden administration has slowed and halted critical weapons that our Israeli allies need to counter Hamas.

That utter incoherence has entangled this body. During the debate over the last national security supplemental, I and many other lawmakers found ourselves unable to support the policy, in part, because we did not believe that the Biden administration would faithfully implement the authorities and appropriations Congress would be providing.

Those doubts were subsequently publicly confirmed. President Biden has explicitly said that he is blocking precision weapons to Israel and that he would even block artillery if Israel moves to fully root out Hamas from Rafah.

I will add, Mr. President, that this policy is particularly egregious in the context of the Gaza pier because the Biden administration requires Israelis to provide force protection for the pier while denying them the weapons they need to do so.

Senate Democrats have, unfortunately, found themselves in the position of knowing that this policy is both incoherent and catastrophic. But at the same time, it is their party's policy so they defend it anyway.

What we should be doing is providing Israel weapons now and denying Hamas the resources it needs to continue its war of terror against Israel.

That is why, in a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to ensure that the Biden administration delivers to Israel the weapons that the Biden administration is withholding.

This legislation has already passed the House. In a moment, it might pass the Senate.

For folks at home who are watching, you should watch very carefully. When I raise the unanimous consent request, a Democrat Senator will stand up and begin speaking. He will begin by saying: ``Reserving the right to object,'' and then he will give some remarks.

Listen for two words: ``I object'' because this is binary. If at the end of his remarks he says ``I object,'' it will defeat this motion, and it will mean that Senate Democrats have decided they agree with Joe Biden in blocking weapons to Israel. And if he doesn't--if he gives the identical speech and just pulls out his pen and crosses out those two words written at the bottom of the speech, he just doesn't say ``I object''--do you know what happens? The legislation that has already passed the House would pass the Senate unanimously, 100 to 0, and go to the President's desk for signature.

Just about every Member of this body goes and gives speeches and says: I support Israel.

Well, talk is cheap. If you support Israel, provide them the weapons they need in a time of war. We are going to find out if the Democrats are willing to do so or not.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 398, H.R. 8369; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.