European capitals have grown far too accustomed to us subsidized security for way too long it's an imbalance that has allowed Europe to enjoy constant protection without bearing the risks or the costs today is Washington host the annual NATO Summit we find ourselves at a Crossroads NATO now turning 75 is an alliance with major issues and 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 US needs to be forthright with our allies that the US cannot sustain the massive levels of support for Ukraine and any discussion of Ukraine's membership cannot be on the table we we have challenges uh right on our front door that need our immediate attention the crisis at our Southern border and The credibility uh the the the the credible military threat from China in our Hemisphere and the Pacific those two things combin are things we've got 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 US 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% 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% 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% is insufficient however commitments to increasing defense spending have not been made at this year Summit while European domestic budgets focus on massively funding free health care shorten work weeks social welfare programs climate alarmism and woke Dei activities the US still far exceeds the wealthiest European NATO allies in military contributions to Ukraine as this graph demonstrates while Americans are pinching pennies we're sending our tax dollars to fight in a farway war the burden must shift to Brussels Berlin Paris and London instead of confronting reality however the Biden Administration recently ined a 10-year security agreement with Ukraine promising that quote Ukraine's future is in NATO and asserts that there are no limits to us 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 US can reasonably do for Ukraine the agreement also leaves open the possibility that US forces will be used to quote confront any future aggression against the Terr torial Integrity of Ukraine once again sidestepping Congress and the American people to put us on a a path to a direct shooting war with a nuclear armed adversary this Madame President is armchair brinksmanship 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 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's time Madame President 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 quote unquote irreversible Ukraine's membership is not set in stone if Ukraine is in the US should be out so Madam president I ask unanimous consent that the the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to Senate resolution S4 748 I further ask that the resolution be agreed to the Preamble be agreed to and that the Motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table is there an objection Madame President senator from Mississippi reserving the right to object uh I would simply observe that this resolution is in fact not the sense of the Senate and it is wrong to suggest that the senate in any way the majority of senators in any way agree with this resolution um it is also a simple fact that the dictator the war criminal Vladimir Putin thinks he can wait out the clock this resolution closes the door would close the door to continued support for Ukraine taking bilateral agreements off the table would simply bind America'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 is there objection reserving senator from Maryland reserving the right to object uh M Mr President um it's interesting earlier today there was a large bipartisan group of senators that met with President zalinski 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 it was a bipartisan support support for Ukraine because we recognize that Ukraine is the front line in the defense of our democracy Ukraine is not asking us for our soldiers they're asking us for our support so I want to start in my concerns of the unanimous consent requests offered by the senator from Utah that the support for the defense of Ukraine enjoys overwhelming bipar parison support here in the United States Senate and that's 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's because most Senators understand what is at stake it's because we understand that Ukraine is not only fighting for themselves they are fighting for the entire Western world it's because we understand that if Putin is successful in Ukraine it will endanger our security interests and those of some of our closest European allies yes they're asking for the 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 and so supporting Ukraine in this fight against one of the most dangerous adversaries in the world is clearly in the National Security interest 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 US National Security interest 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 this case of this agreement the abide Administration proactively reached out to members and staff in both Chambers and 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 and unlike the practice of previous administrations the Biden Administration posted the text of the agreement on the state department website the day it was signed we and Congress were were kept up toate on Parallel negotiations with Ukraine's by 30 other nations they're negotiating with 31 countries bilat security agreements so that we can have a comprehensive help to Ukraine in its defense of democracy many are in NATO but there are also other countries that the US have rallied to support Ukraine so far Ukraine has signed 20 bilat security Deals they include concrete provisions on long-term military and financial aid they include training of Ukrainian troops they include weapons delivery and I want to be clear they do not include deployment of foreign soldiers to fight in Ukraine is envisioned that 32 Nations will enter into bilateral security agreements with Ukraine while they will vary in some extent they will create a robust commitment of support for Ukraine it also add to this argument and specifically United States byat with Ukraine includes commitments by Ukraine to continue its consolidation of democratic governance and anti-corruption initiatives it's absolutely critical we send a clear message to Vladimir Putin that no matter who's in a White House the United States will stand by Ukraine in its fight to maintain its sovereignty finally Mr President this is not charity it serves our national security interests it's because future Wars will be different from the 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 real time 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 a 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 these reasons I object to the unanimous consent request the objection is heard Mr President senator from Utah Mr President I I appreciate the um insights offered by my friend and colleague the distinguished senator from the state of Maryland I'm grateful for uh for his leadership in the in the senate for his friendship and all all he does in looking out for the interests of our country and I'm grateful to have his insights uh today uh on the floor explaining the reasons for his objection uh to the resolution that I've offered but I'd like to note that not one of these arguments negates the fundamental realities that we're dealing with here not not one of them negates something very fundamental in all of this which is the requirement in the Constitution found in in article two section two of the Constitution that says that the president quote shall have power by and with the advice of the Senate to make treaties provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur that's a pretty significant requirement so let's let's address each of these arguments that we've heard in the last few minutes in turn the fact that we've 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 uh providing material support humanitarian or otherwise to Ukraine is not the same as a treaty a treaty creates a a a lasting International obligation one that is uh intended specifically to outlast as my friend from Maryland uh uh noted is the objective here supposed to transcend one Administration to the next so that it's not just a a fleeting moment it's an ongoing Sovereign obligation and for that very reason Mr President article two section two of the Constitution requires that the Senate ratify treaties before they may take effect now the president May uh uh propose them the president May uh negotiate them even even sign them but unless or until a treaty is presented to the Senate and ratified in executive Senate session by the Senate by a two-third super majority vote uh takes 67 votes uh uh with 100 Senators then you don't have a treaty and you don't have that lasting Sovereign intern National obligation one that transcends one Administration to another as far as the argument that there's been transparency there's been Outreach by the White House to senators and communication that's great it's the sort of thing that ought to happen it is in no way sufficient to provide a substitute for or an endr Runner around article two section two of the Constitution requiring that treaties be presented to the Senate and ratified only with 67 votes in a 100 uh member chamber uh so V doesn't do it that can't take care of that here now look the point here is that there's nothing in what I'm suggesting that would necessarily close any doors in the future what I'm trying to say here is that if we're going to do this we're going to close doors as is uh the intention behind this agreement close doors to Future administrations 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've got to follow the treaty process because that's what the Constitution requires so as to the idea that Ukraine is the front line the front line of uh of defending um uh uh 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 T time containing and deterring other potential threats to the United States such as those uh presented by China those have to come first those are are the front lines 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 front line that we are supposed to be focused on that is literally our front line and in so far as that's incompatible with our efforts on another continent those things have to be taken into account but there again Mr President this is exactly the sort of thing that the Senate's 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-third super majority vote executive agreements do not and constitutionally should not and cannot supersede laws passed by Congress and there's 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 nothing in there that says that that satisfies the Constitutional obligation now if the wording of article 2 section 2 or any other provision of the Constitution read otherwise then we'd be in a different circumstance but alas we are not in that universe and quite fortunately uh we're not with good good reason that the founders put in there the 2third super majority 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 get around this simple fact that what we're talking about here is for all practical purposes a treaty and we're being asked to treat it as such that requires 2/3 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 changed our constitutional realities we've each been sworn into office under circumstances where pursuant to another provision of the Constitution we're 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 uh uh simply by calling something an executive agreement uh uh no matter uh how Justified uh uh 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're $35 trillion in debt that we Face threats around the world including and especially from China China which is gaining increasingly foothold uh in our own hemisphere in country after country throughout Latin America uh China is gaining physical presence in addition to a more and more robust commercial Arrangement and in addition to China's investment in so-called uh dual use Technologies uh which uh in many circumstances have military purposes behind them it's one of many policy reasons why we've got to be focused on China in so far as we deplete our own resources in continuing to honor an obligation to another country and another hemisphere we've got to take those things into account it's one of many things that we've got to consider before taking on a treaty obligation make no mistake this is a treaty obligation Abraham Lincoln has quoted as having said uh asked the question at first rhetorically if you uh if you count the tale of a dog as a lady leg how many legs does the dog have people would apparently routinely uh the uninitiated at least respond by saying well five legs and he'd said no it's still four legs just because you call the tail of a dog a leg 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 thank you Mr President you have the floor