[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4328-S4334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

         REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR WOMEN ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to S. 4554, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554, a bill to 
     express support for protecting access to reproductive health 
     care after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Mississippi.


                               Farm Bill

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, we are now well into the month of 
July and less than 3 months away from the current Farm Bill extension 
expiring. As such, I would like to bring renewed focus on the framework 
proposed by my colleague and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee. I commend my friend Senator Boozman from Arkansas for 
presenting us with a framework that answers the call of farmers, 
ranchers, stakeholders, and taxpayers across the country.
  For the greater part of 2 years, we have heard time and time again 
from those who elected us to be here: ``In the next Farm Bill, Congress 
must''--and these are some of the things they say we must do: 
Strengthen the farm safety net--ARC, PLC, disaster assistance, and crop 
insurance, among other important safety net mechanisms; enhance 
conservation programs, especially those designed for our working lands, 
such as the CSP and EQIP programs; provide greater opportunities for 
U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace; ensure that our domestic 
food assistance programs serve as a hand up and not a handout; offer 
better access to credit and financing, particularly for young and 
beginning farmers; dedicate adequate resources to our rural 
communities, which are built around agriculture; invest more in 
agricultural research, in which America is currently lagging behind our 
competitors and adversaries, despite having the brightest minds in the 
world and a storied history of innovation; modernize existing policies 
pertaining to forestry, energy, and horticulture among many others. In 
short, put more farm in the Farm Bill.
  The farm bill framework released by our Senate Agriculture Committee 
ranking member would achieve all of these things and in a bipartisan, 
fiscally responsible manner.
  It is our responsibility in Congress to listen to those who know best 
about what they need to make a living so they can continue to feed our 
Nation and the world. When the Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk 
Management, and Trade conducted a hearing last year on producer 
perspectives of the farm safety net, a producer described the current 
farm safety net as being ``two inches above the concrete.'' That is 
insufficient in today's farm economy, where producers face 
extraordinary volatility, historic inflation, record high input costs, 
catastrophic natural disasters, and geopolitical tensions that disrupt 
markets.
  Times are changing. New challenges and threats to rural America 
emerge every day. This is why Congress revisits this important 
multiyear legislation: to keep what is working, fix what is not, and 
eliminate what is no longer necessary.
  I commend the House Agriculture Committee for advancing a strong, 
commonsense farm bill proposal out of committee, and I commend our 
Senate Ag Committee chair for all of her efforts throughout this 
process.
  But the bottom line is it takes time to move away from partisan 
disagreements. It is time to do that and, instead, work on finding 
common ground. It is time to graduate from concepts and proposals and, 
instead, start advancing actual legislation. Simply put, it is time for 
Congress to enact a new farm bill, one that our farmers, ranchers, and 
rural America have been asking for, for quite some time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Arkansas.


                      Remembering James M. Inhofe

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I come to 
the floor to pay tribute to former Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, a dear 
friend who honorably served the people of the Sooner State.
  Senator Inhofe led a life of public service, first as a soldier in 
the U.S. Army and then in several other roles in elected office at all 
levels of government. It was evident how much he truly loved leading 
and representing his community, the people of Oklahoma, and our 
country.
  I had the honor and privilege of serving with Senator Inhofe and 
developing a relationship based not just on our shared responsibilities 
and interest but also on our faith and our values. We originally met 
when I was a Member of the House of Representatives and had the 
opportunity to join one of his congressional delegation trips.
  As someone I grew to deeply respect and admire, his encouragement for 
me to run for the Senate was a very important part of why I chose to 
launch the campaign, and I consider it a blessing that I got to work 
alongside Senator Inhofe for 12 years together in this Chamber.
  He was a leader on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
when I was a junior member, and I learned so much from simply observing 
him. But he was also gracious enough to view me as a partner.
  A decade ago, I invited the Senator to Fort Smith, AR, my home town, 
a community bordering Oklahoma, and he took me up on the offer. Our 
States are neighbors.
  So, naturally, we worked together on a number of initiatives. Those 
included advocating for infrastructure improvements, such as the 
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and a future interstate 
designation from U.S. Route 412 in Arkansas to I-35 in Oklahoma, and 
the list goes on and on and on.
  I often cited Senator Inhofe's leadership on the EPW Committee as a 
great example of bipartisanship. He and his counterpart, former 
California Senator Barbara Boxer, came from very, very different 
backgrounds and had different beliefs but found common ground and 
accomplished truly remarkable feats, like rewriting a chemical safety 
law and crafting the first long-term highway bill in a decade. That 
simply was not moving. Both of them had a tremendous sense of 
responsibility regarding infrastructure and believed very strongly. So 
they were able to overcome their differences and do what many felt like 
couldn't be done.
  Another thing I learned about him while traveling together was that 
he maintained a very, very rigorous schedule while on congressional 
delegation trips--in fact, in every facet of his life. And they were 
usually whirlwinds. And there was more than one occasion when he set 
out on a morning power walk and only find his way back to the group--he 
is like me; he had no sense of direction at all--with the help of 
landmarks and locals who probably had no idea he was an influential 
statesman and dignitary.
  I truly enjoyed traveling with him on multiple codels as we met so 
many American troops serving abroad, while learning more how to better 
support their needs and missions defending the interests of our 
country.
  Knowing Senator Inhofe at all meant you understood that he and his 
wife Kay had a very special marriage, a very special relationship. They 
filled their home with love and family, and those priorities informed 
everything he stood for.
  My wife Cathy and I will be forever grateful for Jim and Kay's 
friendship. Our prayers are with Kay and the entire Inhofe family as 
they honor the life and legacy of their beloved husband, father, and 
grandfather.
  Senator Inhofe was someone that my former coach at the University of 
Arkansas Frank Broyles would describe as a giver, not a taker. There is 
no better compliment that we can pay him than that.

  May he rest in eternal peace with our Lord and Savior.

[[Page S4329]]

  And with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Hawaii.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreements

  Ms. HIRONO. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The junior Senator from Hawaii.


                   Reproductive Freedom for Women Act

  Ms. HIRONO. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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-

[[Page S4330]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  MS. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I join my colleague from Michigan and 
all of the other Senators who have spoken out on this topic today to 
say that now is the time to protect women's reproductive freedom. I 
thank Leader Schumer for organizing this group of Senators, and I thank 
Senator Murray for her work on this. I thank you as our newest Senator 
for being part of this.
  A few weeks ago, America marked 2 years since the Supreme Court 
overturned half a century of precedent and stripped away every woman's 
right to make her own healthcare decisions, going against the 70 to 80 
percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a 
woman and her family and her doctor and not by politicians. No, they 
don't want our colleagues sitting in the waiting room.
  In the wake of that disastrous decision, women across the country 
remain at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws that are creating 
chaos when it comes to accessing reproductive health care. Today, 22 
States have passed laws that fully or partially ban abortion, and one-
third of women of reproductive age live under extreme and dangerous 
bans.
  For instance, just 2 weeks ago, in our neighboring State of Iowa, 
right below Minnesota, the State supreme court allowed a 6-week 
abortion ban to take effect. You couple that with what has gone on in 
South Dakota and North Dakota, and you understand why, in Minnesota, 
clinics have moved across the border. That is what is happening in 
every State in this Nation right now.
  In States across the country, women are also being forced away from 
emergency rooms and left to travel hundreds of miles for healthcare.
  I think of the woman in Oklahoma who was told that she needed to wait 
in the parking lot until she was much sicker or, as the doctor put it, 
``on the verge of a heart attack.''
  I also think of the woman from Louisiana who was turned away from two 
emergency rooms during a miscarriage because the doctors feared 
prosecution for providing care under stringent abortion laws.
  I don't think any of us will ever forget the heartbreaking story of 
the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana in order to get a 
legal abortion after she was raped--a 10-year-old girl. People didn't 
believe the story. Remember that? And then it turned out it was 
completely true. They said it was a hoax. It wasn't. It is what is 
happening right now in America.
  Doctors are being threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs, 
and access to fertility treatment is at risk for families who are 
desperately trying to get pregnant.
  Like many of my colleagues, I did a series of Fourth of July parades 
over the last week. I think I did eight of them. In nearly every 
parade, someone came up with their child--a little baby, sometimes more 
grown up--and said: She wouldn't be here, he wouldn't be here without 
IVF.
  But right now, all of those things that we have expected for so long 
are at risk--access to contraception, access to abortion drugs that are 
safe in dozens of countries. While the Supreme Court gave us a 
temporary reprieve in the mifepristone case, we know that a number of 
other States are now gearing up to bring similar lawsuits because that 
was just thrown out based on a legal requirement, a legal standing for 
who could bring the case, not actually on the merits.
  This is our current reality, but it doesn't have to be our future. 
This is a pivotal moment for America. Are we going to move forward and 
protect freedom, which has long been a hallmark of our Nation, or are 
we going go further backwards in history? Not just to the 1950s but to 
the 1850s.
  The Supreme Court's decision threatens women's health and freedom no 
matter where you live in this country, and it demands a swift response. 
All three branches of government have a responsibility to protect 
people's rights, and if one branch doesn't do its job, then it is up to 
another to step in. That means it is on Congress to codify Roe v. Wade 
into law.
  Every American woman should be able to get the care she needs without 
navigating unnecessary bans, and the choice of whether and when to 
start a family should be just that.
  While we are here today, I also see Senator Murray is on the floor, 
and I want to thank her for organizing yesterday's group of speakers on 
important legislation related to reproductive freedom.
  In addition to codifying Roe v. Wade into law, we need to pass other 
commonsense measures, like my bill, the UPHOLD Privacy Act, which we 
tried to move forward, thanks to Senator Murray, yesterday. 
Unfortunately, it was blocked. This bill sets limits on how companies 
can use people's health data. This is particularly important following 
recent troubling reports of companies collecting and sharing data 
related to reproductive health care.
  Just this year, we learned that a company allegedly tracked people's 
visits to nearly 600 Planned Parenthood locations across the country 
and provided that data for an anti-abortion ad campaign. That is just 
wrong. No one can believe that it is happening today in America, but it 
is. With a woman's right to reproductive care under attack, it is even 
more dangerous. That is why enacting commonsense limits on how 
companies can use people's personal data is so critical right now.
  All of this comes down to one question: Who should get to make 
personal healthcare decisions for women--the woman herself with her 
doctor, in a family consultation, or a politician whom she is never 
going to meet and who isn't going to be looking out for her?
  To me, the answer is clear. As our country enters its third year 
without Roe v. Wade, I continue to stand with my colleagues in the 
fight for reproductive freedom.
  We stand on the side of the American people who have come together, 
time and time again--in Kentucky, where they voted for a Governor who 
is standing up for reproductive healthcare; in Kansas--in the middle of 
the prairie, where no one expected it--the first real test of this, 
where Democrats and Republicans voted on the side of freedom; in Ohio, 
in a referendum, where, by 11 points, the people of Ohio stood up for 
freedom; or in the legislative races in Virginia or in a congressional 
race on Long Island or in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. The message 
is clear as to where the American people are. This isn't about red 
States or blue States. Think of the States I just listed. This is about 
freedom.
  So we refuse to back down. We refuse to give up. We refuse to settle 
for a reality in which our daughters have fewer rights than their 
mothers and grandmothers. This may be our reality right now; but, 
colleagues, it does not have to be our future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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?

[[Page S4331]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from 
Washington State, the Senate's President pro tempore, for her amazing 
leadership on this issue. She is the lead sponsor of the legislation 
and is on so many other issues across the spectrum but particularly on 
women's rights and women's healthcare. There is no stronger clarion 
voice than the Senator from Washington, so I thank her for that.
  Now, today, Senate Republicans must answer a simple question: Do they 
believe that women should have the right to make their own healthcare 
choices--yes or no?
  The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act is exceedingly simple. All it 
does is express support for a woman's right to choose. That is it--no 
more, no less. It should be an easy ``yes'' vote.
  My Republican colleagues have a choice: Vote yes, and stand with 
women who want their rights protected or stand with Donald Trump and 
the MAGA radicals who want to see those rights taken away.
  We know where the American people stand on freedom of choice: Over 80 
percent of Americans, including two-thirds of Republicans, agree that 
healthcare decisions, including abortion, should be between a woman and 
her doctor. But Americans are rightfully worried that reproductive 
rights are becoming extinct in this country. They see what is happening 
at the Supreme Court. They see the attacks against women's rights in 
States like Texas and Florida and Alabama and Idaho and beyond.
  The American people want to know where their Senators stand on 
freedom of choice. By voting on reproductive freedoms, we are moving 
the issue forward because it is very important and very reasonable for 
Members to be asked to take a position on such a vital issue. If Senate 
Republicans genuinely trust women to make their own reproductive 
choices, then they should not block this bill today.
  I want to tell our Republican colleagues: The American people are

[[Page S4332]]

watching how we vote. You can run, but you can't hide. All of America 
is going to know whether you are for women's reproductive rights or not 
by this vote--no excuses. This is it. They--the American people--want 
to see who will defend their fundamental freedoms and who will not.
  Again, let me thank Senator Murray for leading on this bill. Let me 
thank every female Senator on our side of the aisle for cosponsoring it 
along with me.
  We need a ``yes'' vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554, a bill to express 
     support for protecting access to reproductive health care 
     after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Alex Padilla, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Jack Reed, Margaret Wood Hassan, 
           Christopher Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Mazie K. Hirono, Thomas R. Carper, Tina Smith, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Gary C. Peters, Tammy Duckworth, 
           Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Catherine Cortez Masto, Richard 
           Blumenthal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 4554, a bill to express support for protecting 
access to reproductive health care after the Dobbs v. Jackson decision 
on June 24, 2022, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator 
from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Scott).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cruz
     Markey
     Menendez
     Mullin
     Romney
     Scott (FL)
     Sinema
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are 
49, the nays are 44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 748

  Mr. LEE. 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

[[Page S4333]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply observe that this resolution is, in fact, not a sense of the 
Senate, and it is wrong to suggest that a majority of Senators in any 
way agree with this resolution.
  It is also a simple fact that the dictator, the war criminal Vladimir 
Putin thinks he can wait out the clock. This resolution would close the 
door to continued support for Ukraine. Taking bilateral agreements off 
the table would simply bind American's hands.
  Victory against the dictator Putin must be our position. Ukraine 
can't win without the support of its friends. Putin knows this, and, 
surely, my friend the senior Senator from Utah also knows this.
  We should not pass this resolution because it would hand Putin a 
rhetorical victory and we should not permit that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. 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

[[Page S4334]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________