A resolution expressing that the United States should not enter into any bilateral or multilateral agreement to provide security guarantees or long-term security assistance to Ukraine.

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.

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, in reserving the right to object, it is interesting. Earlier today, there was a large bipartisan group of Senators that met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. We expressed our bipartisan support for the United States continuing to support Ukraine's efforts to repeal the outrageous attack to their sovereignty by Mr. Putin and Russia. There was bipartisan support for Ukraine because we recognized that Ukraine is the frontline in the defense of our democracy. Ukraine is not asking us for our soldiers; they are asking us for our support.

So I want to start, in my concerns of the unanimous consent request offered by the Senator from Utah, in that the support for the defense of Ukraine enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate. That is why I was pleased to join Senator Wicker on the floor. When the supplemental funding bill came up for a vote, 79 Senators-- Republicans and Democrats alike--backed it.

Why is that? It is because most Senators understand what is at stake. It is because we understand that Ukraine is not only fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the entire Western World. It is because we understand, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, it will endanger our security interests and those of some of our closest European allies.

Yes, they are asking for financial and military support. Their success--Ukraine's success--will help make it possible for our soldiers not to be in another war in Europe. So supporting Ukraine in this fight against one of the most dangerous adversaries in the world is clearly in the national security interests of the United States.

I also want to address one of the arguments offered by my colleague from Utah: the idea that this Executive agreement should have no effect unless submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. Multiple administrations have used Executive agreements to advance diplomatic goals that are in the U.S.'s national security interests. Along with my colleagues, I support this bilateral agreement because it does just that; it advances Ukraine's interests and our own interests in national security.

Unlike other administrations, in the case of this agreement, the Biden administration proactively reached out to Members and staff in both Chambers of both parties to share the parameters of the negotiations while they were underway. They solicited reactions and input from Congress, and they took some of our input in regards to the final negotiations. Unlike the practices of previous administrations, the Biden administration posted the text of the agreement on the State Department's website the day it was signed.

We in Congress were kept up to date on parallel negotiations with Ukraine by 31 other nations. They were negotiating with 31 countries in bilateral security agreements so that we could give comprehensive help to Ukraine in its defense of democracy. Many are in NATO, but there are also other countries that the U.S. has rallied to support Ukraine. So far, Ukraine has signed 20 bilateral security deals. They include concrete provisions on long-term military and financial aid. They include the training of Ukrainian troops. They include weapons delivery.

I want to be clear: They do not include the deployment of foreign soldiers to fight in Ukraine. It is envisioned that 32 nations will enter into bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. While they will vary to some extent, they will create a robust commitment of support for Ukraine. I would also add that these agreements--and specifically the United States' bilateral agreement with Ukraine-- include commitments by Ukraine to continue its consolidation of democratic governance and anti-corruption initiatives.

It is absolutely critical we send a clear message to Vladimir Putin that, no matter who is in the White House, the United States will stand by Ukraine in its fight to maintain its sovereignty.

Finally, this is not charity. It serves our national security interests. It is because future wars will be different from prior conflicts. They will now involve modern technology. Right now, Ukraine is experimenting with how to be effective in such a war, and Ukraine is adapting in realtime. With this bilateral agreement, Ukraine will be sharing information with the United States on everything they are learning on the battlefield. They will give our soldiers and military planners the ability to develop creative ways to use these new technologies.

This agreement strengthens our national security; it strengthens Ukraine; and it strengthens the resolve of allies looking to the United States for leadership on the global stage.

For all of these reasons, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I am really proud to be joining the senior Senator from Hawaii and other colleagues who will be coming to the floor to talk about such an important topic and bill as the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act.

We know that for 50 years, Roe v. Wade protected our freedom to make our own healthcare decisions, and then 2 years ago, it was gone. I can't believe that today's young women, including my daughter and granddaughters, have fewer freedoms than their mothers and their grandmothers did.

Frankly, we are furious in Michigan. Do you want to know just how furious? Well, in Michigan, we turned our anger into action, and in November of 2022, we had the largest voter turnout for a midterm election ever. One of the measures on the ballot enshrined a right to reproductive freedom in our Michigan Constitution. It passed by a strong 13-point margin because Michiganders understand that healthcare decisions should be made by individual women--not by judges, not by politicians.

By the way, we hear all the time on the other side that it is a debate between, should it be Federal politicians or State politicians? Neither. Neither. This is about individuals having the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. I can't believe we have to debate this in 2024 in America, but a lot of folks just haven't gotten the message yet.

Today, 22 States now have near total bans or severe restrictions on abortion services, and that means one out of three women now lives under an extreme or dangerous abortion ban. We know who is to blame for this because they brag about it all the time: Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans.

Since the fall of Roe, Republicans have continued their assault on access to contraception, on IVF, a choice for those who desperately want a baby and need some additional help from science to help make that happen, to severe and total restrictions on abortion services.

Unfortunately, MAGA Republicans want total control of our lives and total control of our fundamental freedoms. Last month, Democrats acted to protect these freedoms for women. Unfortunately, every time we brought bills to the Senate floor, Republicans blocked them, and unfortunately, we know they won't stop there. We know that the Republican Party, if they have their way, will create a national abortion ban, which means Michigan's constitutional protections that people worked very hard to achieve--hundreds of thousands of signatures, working hard, voting to put this protection for our freedoms into the Michigan Constitution--will all be ripped away if that happens.

Imagine what this would mean for a woman who learns that the pregnancy she desperately wants is not viable and her own life is at risk. This is actually happening, unfortunately, all the time right now in the States that have severe restrictions.

I will never forget hearing a woman talking about her own experience of being told she wasn't close enough to death to get care in the emergency room. She had to go and sit in her car until she was so close to death that they felt they could treat her.

Doctors are now talking to their attorney before they are talking to other doctors or women and their families and so on. We are seeing so many things happen--so many things now. We have already seen one study showing in Texas that there has been an 8-

percent increase in infant mortality. That means children don't live until their first birthday because something has happened. So who decides what happens to someone in that situation--the woman, supported by her family and her doctor, or a rightwing Supreme Court and Republicans in the U.S. Senate or any other elected body?

Today, we have an incredibly important vote. It will tell us where every single Member of this Chamber stands. Do you think women should have the basic freedom to make decisions about our own health--that anyone should have the freedom to make decisions about their own health? It is as simple as that.

We know where we stand. We are working every day to defend our freedom to make decisions about our own healthcare; to make sure that it is not a politician, that it is not a judge; that it is women, their faith, their families, their doctors; that people who are directly involved are making those decisions.

The women of this country should have the freedom to make our own decisions about our own healthcare, our own lives, and our own futures. That is what this vote is about. And we are not going to give up until we have those freedoms fully protected.

I would urge colleagues to pass the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Hirono for up to 10 minutes, Stabenow for up to 5 minutes, Klobuchar for up to 10 minutes, Murray for up to 5 minutes, and Schumer for up to 5 minutes.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554, be waived; finally, that the cloture motion with respect to the Kiko nomination be withdrawn and, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Kiko nomination.

Madam President, after Dobbs came down, we worried about what a post-Dobbs America would look like. Would other reproductive freedoms be attacked and stripped away, piece by piece, across the country? Now, 2 years later, we know the answer is yes.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court ``return[ed] the issue of abortion'' to the States and eliminated a constitutional right women in our country had relied on for nearly 50 years.

We often refer to the States as laboratories of democracy. Sadly, these laboratories are now experimenting on women with dystopian results. This hellish experimentation has resulted in devastating consequences for women and families across the country who are now subject to State-imposed abortion bans.

As a result of over 20 States enacting abortion bans--some without exception for rape or incest--women all over our country are being forced to travel far distances for abortion care or, worse, to continue pregnancies regardless of the risks. Their stories are horrifying-- stories like that of Kate Cox, a mother of two in Texas whose pregnancy was threatening her life and her ability to have more children in the future.

Despite her deteriorating physical condition, Texas officials ruled that she wasn't sick enough to get an abortion, forcing her to travel out of State to receive the lifesaving care she needed.

While Kate has the ability to travel, so many other women in her condition do not and are forced to suffer the unimaginable consequences of Republican's obsession with power and control.

What is more, healthcare workers in States with abortion bans are living under a constant threat of criminal prosecution. When patients in States with abortion bans present with signs of a miscarriage, doctors are unable to provide emergency treatment--going against their legal and professional duty of care and years of expert training. As a result, many of these providers are fleeing their practices, contributing to reproductive healthcare deserts all across the country.

The cruelty of Dobbs has also resulted in an increase in infant mortality in States with abortion bans, as women are forced to carry fetuses with fatal birth defects to term.

Let's be clear. Abortion bans aren't about protecting anyone. They are about the right's obsession with power and control, plain and simple.

But while Republicans continue their march toward a nationwide abortion ban, they refuse to be honest with the American people. Time after time, Republicans have come to this floor insisting that they support women's health, only to turn around and vote against bill after bill that would do just that. Despite their rhetoric, they voted en masse against the right to contraception, the right to IVF, and have consistently blocked any effort in this Chamber to protect women's fundamental rights. But still my Republican colleagues insist they stand with women.

Today, they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act is straightforward. It simply expresses support for protecting access to reproductive health care. The bill is one-page long and does not codify Roe or enact any policy changes.

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who actually supports women and our right to control our own bodies. But if past is prologue, it is safe to say Republicans will vote against this bill today, only to insist tomorrow that they are the party of freedom. Give me a break.

Democrats, meanwhile, are determined to restore, protect, and strengthen reproductive rights, and we will not stop fighting until we succeed in this. That is why today I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats in voting for the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act to support reproductive rights and health care for all.

I yield the floor.