Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 858, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 6, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Behm nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed on December 1 ripen at 12 noon and that the Senate recess after the cloture vote on the Behm nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, that at 2:20 p.m., the Senate vote on the Hodge nomination and if cloture is invoked on either nomination, that the confirmation votes occur at 4:30 p.m.; that the cloture votes in relation to the Perez, Scott, and Murphy nominations be at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, during Wednesday's session of the Senate; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

For the information of the Senate, there will be one rollcall vote at 12 noon, one at 2:20 p.m., and two at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, today I recognize Mylan Barin Hawkins, who passed away on August 26, 2022. Mylan devoted her life to serving others and made invaluable contributions to the State of Nevada. She was a dedicated political and social activist who fought to advance women's rights and advocated for healthcare for women and children.

Mylan was born in Chicago, IL, and attended the University of Chicago. Mylan was involved in Chicago Ward Boss politics before moving to Florida, where she founded Project Survival after giving birth to a premature son. Project Survival helped build a neonatal center at the University of Miami Jackson Memorial Hospital. Mylan was driven by her passion to work on women's and children's healthcare. She served on nonprofits and advocacy campaigns wherever she went. She helped raise funds for the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and for the Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital in New York.

In 1976, Mylan settled in Reno, NV, and immediately set to work to advance women's rights in the State. Mylan joined the National Organization for Women in their mission to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Along the way, Mylan helped pass ground-breaking legislation and ballot initiatives in the State. Mylan also cofounded the Nevada and California Diabetes Association, an organization focused on providing local services including camps, teen, family and adult support programs, and emergency medical information and referral services.

In the late 1980s, Mylan and her colleagues realized the dangers ahead for reproductive freedom. They worked tirelessly to draft a State ballot referendum protecting Nevada women's reproductive rights, which passed in 1990. Mylan continued to advocate for women's rights and was in her late 70s when she launched the 2016 Women's March in Reno, gathering thousands of supporters. Mylan also helped found Northern Nevada Marches Forward, an inclusive volunteer led nonprofit with a mission to support, spotlight, and uplift the voices and power of diverse people and communities to create transformative social change.

Mylan's tenacity and courage are a testament to the grit and spirit of Nevada women, and her legacy lives on in the countless women and activists she has inspired and mentored across the State. Her service and dedication to her country, community, and her family will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

In 1922, Nevadans started the organization that would become the Nevada Taxpayers Association, NTA. From its first office located in the Reno National Bank Building, the small organization has continued to work on behalf of Nevada taxpayers. It is now one of the oldest governmental research and advocacy associations, not only in Nevada but in the United States.

Today, the NTA is a renowned tax policy and analysis organization, providing valuable service to the citizens of the Silver State. NTA advocates on behalf of Nevada's working families for policies that promote efficiency, accountability and common sense. NTA ensures State and local lawmakers have the data and expert analysis to craft fair tax policy, including by providing the public with ``Tax Facts,'' a digest of tax history dating back nearly 50 years.

NTA had the foresight to advocate with the Nevada Legislature to establish a rainy day fund to insulate the State budget from dramatic swings that sometimes resulted in tough choices and devastating cuts to critical services such as education and healthcare. There are many examples of NTA raising difficult issues that required legislators across the aisle to work together. From helping establish the Nevada Gaming Law in the 1930s, to developing a ``computers for schools program'' for Nevada's public school system, the association has played an active role in fiscal policy analysis and research that has strengthened our State for the benefit of every Nevadan.

Congratulations to the Nevada Taxpayers Association on its 100th anniversary and for supporting good government in Nevada. I look forward to its continued success.

Madam President, 5 years ago this Saturday, my hometown of Las Vegas endured one of the darkest days in its history. On a beautiful autumn evening, the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival was interrupted when a gunman showered the concert with bullets from a high-rise hotel room. Those who were at the festival, including my niece, at first thought the gunshots were fireworks, but they soon realized that something much more deadly was unfolding.

Fifty-eight people lost their lives that night, and two more have died in the years since the attack. Over 850 people were wounded, and tens of thousands who attended the concert or helped respond to the shooting bear the visible and invisible scars of that night.

It is hard to overstate the scale of the devastation of that night, and it remains the worst mass shooting in modern American history. As soon as the gunfire broke out, first responders sprang into action, as did ordinary citizens, turning concert barriers into stretchers and trucks and cars into makeshift ambulances. Doctors and nurses rushed to hospitals, and thousands of people lined up all over the State to donate blood. Individuals and businesses contributed food, blankets, airline tickets home, or whatever survivors might need.

At the worst of times, Nevadans came together to support one another, and they have worked to help each other ever since. Local businesses have supported the construction of a healing garden. The commission working on a permanent memorial continues to make progress, and this summer it invited the public to participate in its planning. And scholarship funds and activity groups continue their work to support the children of victims and survivors.

And this weekend in Las Vegas, thanks to the work of the Vegas Strong Resiliency Center, bereaved families, survivors, first responders, and community members will light lanterns together to honor the strength, the light, and resilience of the Las Vegas community.

The fact is, though, that trauma leaves its marks. Many of those touched by the Route 91 attack say that the shooting created a permanent before and after for them. It fundamentally changed their lives. And America has seen far too many of these mass attacks, from Orlando to San Jose, Parkland to Buffalo. More recently, of course, this summer saw the horrific shooting in Uvalde, TX, of 19 students and 2 teachers.

In the wake of Uvalde, Route 91 survivors Geena and Marisa Marano came to see me. They are sisters whose experiences at the festival inspired them to work for change. They told me that knowing how difficult it had been for them as survivors of a mass attack, they could not imagine what children who survived Uvalde were going through, and so they were in Washington to call, once again, for change. This time, they succeeded.

Over the summer, Congress passed and the President signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which contains a range of commonsense provisions to reduce gun violence in America. I can't emphasize this accomplishment enough. People thought that passing bipartisan gun safety legislation was impossible, but because of the work and the dedication and advocacy of so many, including Route 91 survivors like Marisa and Geena, we got it done.

I am especially proud that I was able to help secure enhanced background checks for those under 21 years of age as well as additional mental health funding that is needed in our schools. Many survivors will be the first to say the work isn't finished yet. That was a first step; we still have more to do. And I agree with them. They are going to continue to push for commonsense reforms, and I will support them as I always have. Because these shootings are just devastating for whole communities, we have to do something. I know for many in Las Vegas and all over Nevada--this week especially--will bring difficult reminders of that dark day 5 years ago, but it will also bring a renewed determination to heal, to memorialize, to honor those who were affected, and to work toward a safer future.

Madam President, I will continue to stand with my hometown and with those survivors not only in Nevada but across the country and to do everything that I can to work for the same goals that they care about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to clarify a colloquy between myself and Chairman Wyden placed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 2022. The statement in the Record references geothermal energy as applicable to the new ``section 48D'' of the Tax Code added by section 13702 of the Inflation Reduction Act. The statement should have referenced that section as ``section 48E.'' As explained in that colloquy, geothermal will qualify for the production and investment tax credits included in sections 13701 and 13702 of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Madam President, in June, as we are hearing, the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, reversing nearly 50 years of law that recognized a woman's fundamental right to reproductive freedom. We also know that Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion repeatedly insisted that the Court's decision would return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives in the States. But this was never about States' rights, really, to my rightwing colleagues who want to restrict a woman's fundamental rights, and we know that because now they are pushing for a national abortion ban.

Yesterday, as we have heard, Senator Graham introduced a strict national abortion ban with criminal penalties for doctors who provide critical care. If it passes, this bill will preempt the laws in States across the country

where abortion is still legal, including my own State of Nevada. In Nevada, our voters approved a ballot initiative in 1990 to enshrine a woman's right to choose in our State laws.

So what happened to my colleagues' claims of respecting the rights of States to make that decision? Well, apparently it wasn't enough to pack the Court with Supreme Court Justices who would vote to deprive women of the right that they have held for 50 years, under the guise of States' rights. Now, when far-right Republicans disagree with a State's decision, like mine, they plan to impose their own laws.

The current legislation introduced by Senator Graham stops the people in pro-choice States--like mine, like Nevada--from choosing to protect the rights of women. At the same time, it leaves in place stricter abortion bans in 14 States.

What these far-right Republicans are effectively saying now is this: Anti-choice States, you are free to choose however harsh you want your abortion bans to be. But you pro-choice States, you are out of luck. Whatever the voters want in your States, it really doesn't matter because we are going to impose our own laws.

Look, Nevadans, as I have said, in 1990, we worked to codify Roe v. Wade because we know that it is impossible to walk in another woman's shoes. We know that for each woman, this is an important decision for each individual woman to make with her doctor, with her loved ones, about her healthcare, about her family planning.

I do not know what another woman is going to go through, and I do not want to restrict her access to any type of care, nor should any of us be imposing our beliefs, our experiences, our religion on someone else.

That is what this is about, and that is why Nevada voters voted in 1990 to codify Roe v. Wade and give women the right to make this decision.

Right now, we are seeing some politicians once again declare that they know what is best for every family in this Nation. They want to force the State of Nevada and other States like Nevada to limit women's freedoms, even though voters in my State voted to legally protect the right to choose that Nevada women have had for 50 years.

I have been saying for months now that some of my colleagues would never be satisfied with just overturning Roe and that they wouldn't rest until there was a national abortion ban. This bill shows every American that not only are women's rights under attack, but so is the democratic process in States like Nevada. If we don't have an abortion ban on the books, our State rights don't matter. That is just unacceptable. We can't let our nieces, our daughters, our granddaughters grow up in a world where they have fewer rights than we have had in the past.

So I, for one, will keep fighting back because this is about a fundamental right for American women and the will of people in States like Nevada to make that decision and help and vote for the right of women to choose.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, to discuss sections 13701 and 13702 of the Inflation Reduction Act. These sections establish new sections 45Y and 48D of the Tax Code that provide new tax credits for, respectively, production from and investment in clean electricity resources that are placed in service after December 31, 2024.

As the chairman of the Finance Committee knows well, the Inflation Reduction Act includes new and improved clean energy tax credits, and I commend Senator Wyden for leading the effort to simplify the Tax Code's incentives for clean electricity. These credits will advance our transition to a clean energy future and are a key part of this legislation's goal of reducing carbon emissions from the electricity sector more than 40 percent by 2030.

The 45Y and 48D provisions expressly make geothermal energy eligible for critical tax credits, and I appreciate the chairman's attention to this issue given its importance to Nevada's economy. Nevada is a leader in geothermal energy and the industry provides critical jobs and revenues for my State and others across the country. Geothermal resources also provide clean power, and they are essential to meet the emissions reduction goals of this legislation. As the current chairman of the Finance Committee and former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, can Senator Wyden comment how this legislation intends to spur the deployment of this critical clean energy technology?

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and my friend from Oregon for his comprehensive answer, his commitment to solving for climate change, and for joining me today in this colloquy.

Mr. President, I do, I have to thank my friend and colleague Senator Warner from Virginia. He has been a leading voice on this issue and the importance of passing this legislation, not just because it addresses our national security. It gives us an economic advantage in this country. But he also realizes the jobs it creates, and it positions not just Nevada but every State--this country--to lean into the future and be prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.

So I thank you because I know that you have been at the forefront of this, and you have not relented. Thank you, thank you for everything that you have done.

Medicare

Mr. President, there is another issue that is important for Nevada that I want to talk about. It is not just Nevada but for so many across the country.

You know, I was elected to the Senate, and ever since then, in 2017, I have stood up for Medicare and Nevada seniors. I have fought against the Trump administration's cruel proposals to cut Medicare funding, and I championed provisions to expand Medicare funding and services.

That is why I was shocked when, last week, hundreds of Nevadans began calling my office. They were anxious and alarmed over a deliberately misleading ad that is running on TV, on Facebook, and via a text campaign.

In Reno, this past weekend, Nevadans came up to me because they were concerned about these false accusations. This ad incorrectly claims that I support a bill that would strip $300 billion from Medicare. This couldn't be further from the truth.

What I do know is that the ad is a deliberate lie, and what they are being funded by, unfortunately--these ads--is a dark money group. They are being funded by American Prosperity Alliance. This is exactly the kind of group I have been raising the alarm about for years, because here is the truth, here are the facts: I am standing up for Medicare, just like I always have. I am pushing legislation, just like many of our colleagues, just like the Presiding Officer is, as well, to lower prescription drug costs for Nevadans and save Medicare and so many other seniors across the country really almost $300 billion.

It saves the government. What we are doing, our legislation, in total, saves dollars--almost $300 billion--for the government and, ultimately, the taxpayers.

The bill would not cut anything but Big Pharma's profits, and seniors in Nevada and across the country can expect even stronger benefits under the legislation that I am working on, that the Presiding Officer is working on, as so many of us are. So why would the ads lie about something so important to the American public when we are working to lower their costs and give them access to affordable healthcare in this country?

Here is why: Because powerful interest groups out there don't want this legislation to succeed. So they are pouring dark money into efforts to stop it.

Now, we don't know who really funded this ad, and the organization that wrote the check doesn't have to disclose that information. So nobody can be held accountable, and that is part of the problem. And that is why I have been calling for this accountability and this transparency about who is funding all of these ads.

That is what we know--that the dark money is out there, and the only one that is going to benefit from these ads at the end of the day is Big Pharma, because they don't want their profits cut. So they are trying to frighten Nevadans and pressure me to vote against a bill that would help my very constituents.

Well, let me just say this: It won't work. I stand up to bullies, and when I was attorney general, I was very proud that not only did I take on the big banks during the foreclosure crisis, but, during my tenure and continuing now, I stood up to Big Pharma, suing Pfizer for millions after the company misled Nevada consumers about the safety of its drugs.

So I am not going to be intimidated by advertisements spouting false information to my constituents.

So I am here today to set the record straight and make sure that Nevadans understand what is really going on, because here is what is happening: The very legislation that I am working on, that the Presiding Officer is working on for New Mexico, and so many of us are, would dramatically lower prescription drug costs and strengthen Medicare. It would do this by capping out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. It would punish drug companies that try to raise the prices of their drugs faster than the rate of inflation. And, oh, yes, it would allow the government to negotiate fair prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

Our legislation will save the government almost $300 billion. Now, that is not a cut; that is a savings. Every household in the country knows the difference between the two. Under this plan, Nevadans will be getting more benefits for less money, period. That is the truth.

Here is my question to Big Pharma: Why do you go out and scare individuals, put ads out there that you are paying for that are lies, when in actuality you could be working with us?

Because here is what I know, at the end of the day, from my constituents: Nobody in this country, whether you live in the State of Nevada or in any other State, should have to make a tough decision of whether you can afford your healthcare, your prescription drugs, or put food on the table or pay your electric bill. That is not what this country is about.

So to Big Pharma, I will call you out. You want to really be a part of the solution? Then come support this legislation. Help us in this country lower costs for so many families who literally need access to medications that they cannot afford. That is not what this country stands for.

So that is the truth, and to anyone--anyone--who wants to come out and challenge that, I am ready to debate you any time of the day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come forward today to recognize the 100th anniversary of Lehman Caves National Monument, the precursor to Great Basin National Park. Today, Great Basin National Park is a 77,000-acre expanse known for its natural beauty and wonderful trails. The Lehman Caves Monument has been managed by the National Park Service for more than half a century, prior to the creation of the larger park. Lehman Caves attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year, providing them with the opportunity to explore underground wonders.

The caves themselves were first used by Native Americans and later ``rediscovered'' by settlers in the late 1880s before President Warren Harding established Lehman Caves National Monument on January 24, 1922. This declaration provided for custodians of the caves to make improvements, including much-needed repairs and the creation of safer routes for tourists to explore the caves' beauty. In the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt transferred control of Lehman Caves to the National Park Service, enhancing work to repair and rehabilitate the caves. The caves were then added to the larger National Park legislation that officially created Great Basin National Park, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 27, 1986. As a part of Great Basin National Park, Lehman Caves remains accessible today through tours led by park rangers.

Further, the quarter-mile long cavern is filled with spectacular geological formations, including stalactites, stalagmites, popcorn, and a wavy rock pattern of colorful flowstone, commonly referred to as ``cave bacon.'' The cavern is also home to a number of unique species. The Great Basin cave pseudoscorpion and the Lehman Caves millipede, for example, were first found in Lehman Caves and exist only in Great Basin National Park. From its geology to its ecosystem, Lehman Caves has provided visitors with an experience unlike any other in the world.

The joy that outdoor recreation brings Nevada's residents and visitors is invaluable, and the ongoing success of monuments and parks like Lehman Caves is yet another reason that we must work to keep our natural resources healthy and available for future generations. From Lehman Caves to Lake Tahoe, Nevada's public lands are treasured by visitors and locals alike.

I am pleased to recognize Lehman Caves' 100 years of official service to our great State, and I wish Great Basin National Park staff well in continuing their work to preserve and enhance the park for many years to come. Nevadans are fortunate to have this precious natural wonder in our State, and we will continue to protect it as a part of our home.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Washington and the question posed because it is exactly part of the concern we have. I was home in Nevada just recently, and I am very proud Nevada is a pro-choice State.

Our providers are concerned. There is a chilling effect when they are hearing other States that are literally criminalizing--looking to pass laws to criminalize providers for providing healthcare and a woman traveling across State lines.

What I hear from my providers is we want to help women. We want them to come to our State, but if their State is going to pursue legislation or criminalize or penalize or prosecute us or a private citizen can come after us from that State, then we are having second thoughts about this because they do not want to be embroiled in some sort of litigation. That is part of this.

I think it is so important. Thank you for the question because that is exactly what their intent is.

These anti-choice States--individuals who are taking away the liberty and freedom of women are also utilizing this chilling effect, this threat, this scare tactic for providers, employers, and anyone else who wants to help women to get to States where they can seek this healthcare that they need. That is the challenge we see. That is why this law is so important because it is having an impact on our providers in these legitimate choice States like ours who want to provide this healthcare.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, and I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Murray, Whitehouse, and Gillibrand, for their good work with me on the legislation we are talking about today, which is the Freedom to Travel for Healthcare Act.

As you have heard from my colleagues and as we know in the past few months, we have seen women's right to choose taken away in States around the country overnight.

Less than 3 weeks ago, the Supreme Court explicitly overturned Roe v. Wade, depriving women of a right they held for 50 years. When the Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, it repeatedly insisted that its holding would, ``return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives'' in the States. Forget women, forget women's rights, but let's give it to the politicians.

As a result, in 18 States, abortion is either effectively banned or will be within 30 days. Ultimately, around half of States are expected to get rid of most or all abortion services within their borders.

In the face of these profound restrictions on reproductive health services, American women, who are able to do so, have had to travel to States, like mine, that still protect the women's right to choose.

Thanks to a 1990 referendum, Nevada has enshrined the right to choose in statute in my State. That is why we are already seeing women make their way to Nevada to get the healthcare that they need and they deserve.

But radical anti-choice policymakers have been emboldened by the Supreme Court decision and its discord and its shocking disregard for precedent. Yet they are not satisfied with a country where abortion is only banned in half the States.

We know now they are working to introduce legislation in Congress to ban abortion nationwide. And until they can pass it, they want to stop women from traveling for critical care and to punish people who support these women.

Anti-choice State legislators in Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas have said they want to pass bills to fine or prosecute women who travel for healthcare and do the same to providers who offer abortion services and the many employers who have said they will support their employees who need to seek reproductive care in another State.

Let me be specific about this because this is devastating already to so many, including in my State.

In Missouri, a State legislator has repeatedly introduced legislation that would allow private citizens to sue those who help Missouri citizens receive out-of-State abortion services.

In Texas, State legislators have said they will introduce legislation to ban businesses that help employees travel

to receive abortions. They have also written cease-and-desist letters to companies like Lyft, Citigroup, and even law firms to tell them to stop helping employees who seek abortion out of State.

In Arkansas, a State senator has called for a law targeting businesses helping employees travel for care.

Let's not forget South Dakota because the Governor of South Dakota refused in an interview to rule out laws that target women who travel for abortion.

But we are not done yet because we also know that some anti-choice groups are actively pushing for such bans. The Thomas More Society, an extremist anti-choice group, is working on draft legislation. Its vice president told the Washington Post:

Just because you jump across a state line doesn't mean your

home state doesn't have jurisdiction. It's not a free

abortion card when you drive across the state line.

The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an anti-abortion organization led by Republican State legislators, is also reported to be working on similar legislation modeled after the Texas law.

There is no doubt in my mind that some States are going to continue to move forward with these kinds of legislation.

I want to note that, quite frankly, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to have it both ways for years, insisting that the right to choose was safe--in my State, they have done it--at the same time they supported increasingly extreme limits to it. We even heard nominees testify that they would follow Supreme Court precedent, including Roe and Casey. Yet now we all know those reassurances were all false. We have seen women's reproductive rights eroded steadily for decades, and we know that anti-choice activists won't stop. This is a form of gaslighting, to keep insisting that American women will be able to get care when we know that anti-choice legislators and groups are working to stop them from doing so.

What legislators are doing across the country to restrict women from traveling is just blatantly unconstitutional. They constrain the fundamental constitutional right to travel, they are anti-woman, they are anti-business, and they are anti-provider.

Let me just say, merely proposing this legislation, merely talking about civil action or prosecuting a woman or a provider or even an employer who helps a woman to travel, is having a chilling effect.

In my State, they are already seeing that these proposals are having a chilling effect on my providers, who are worried about offering quality abortion care in the face of potential lawsuits. In Montana, reproductive health clinics are even limiting care to instate residents only. Imagine traveling hundreds of miles for essential healthcare, only to be turned away for fear of a lawsuit.

That is why I and my colleagues have introduced this bill to make it crystal clear: States cannot and must not prosecute women who travel across State lines for critical reproductive care.

Our legislation also protects healthcare providers in destination States and anyone who helps women travel for the care they deserve, from businesses to taxi drivers, to doctors.

Today, we are calling to pass this legislation. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe in States' rights and the liberty of freedom for women in this country, they should support this bill. If they believe in the fundamental right of all Americans to travel, they should support this bill. If they fail to protect women who travel for healthcare and those who support them, then they need to go on record for the American people to explain why.

I will tell you what. It is not enough to stand there and say that somehow this legislation is a fly-in abortionist legislation. My colleague from Montana failed to read this legislation. And fearmongering at this point in time when women's fundamental rights are being eroded in this country is not the answer that women and so many Americans in this country now need.

What we need is for people to recommend and support and identify with the freedoms that this country brings to all of us, whether you are a woman or a man in this country. This is about the right to choose and make those decisions for women. It is a fundamental right. It is an important right. It is our healthcare and our decision. We are 50 percent of this population, and we deserve to be treated equally.

With that, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4504 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I would ask for 5 minutes to respond.

Mr. President, I do appreciate my colleague from Oklahoma coming here to talk. I disagree with his argument, but I do appreciate his profound belief in what he is saying.

I think it is ironic that the issue here before us is really a States right issue. It is exactly what Justice Alito did in the Dobbs case and referred this issue to the States to make that decision, and all my legislation says is, respect my State. We are a choice State. We have made that decision as a State, and if women want to travel to my State to seek services and my providers want to provide those services and employers want to help women travel, then let the States do that. We shouldn't be impeding on those decisions.

So it is kind of ironic. I hear my colleagues talking about, in this case, let's take the emotion out of it, except when they want to put emotion into the issue, or let's take the emotion out of it when it is not convenient for the arguments they are making.

Let me also address a couple of things because now I have learned from some of my colleagues, really, the argument they are going to start making is that somehow this legislation is flying in abortions, which it absolutely is not. It is a States rights issue. And nobody is flying into my State to provide healthcare. The actual healthcare is already there.

The other thing I have heard, which is actually very offensive to me and I think to so many, is that somehow this is trafficking women. Well, let me tell you about trafficking. I know trafficking. I wrote the law to prevent sex trafficking and sexual exploitation in the State of Nevada for so many who were being sexually exploited across this country, to hold predators accountable, to make sure that they can become survivors. This is not trafficking. And for anyone to stand up and say that it is has a complete misunderstanding. And quite honestly, I will welcome you to the fight about human trafficking in this country and sexual exploitation of women and children across the country. That is so offensive. But I am not surprised because in this day and age, unfortunately, some of these radical ideas coming out of this Congress miss what is happening across this country.

A majority of Americans in this country support the right of women to choose because you know why? I don't know what it is like to step in their shoes and walk in their shoes and nor do you, nor does anyone here. I shouldn't impose my beliefs, my religion, my ideas on what they should do for their lives. None of us should. That is the freedom in this country. That is who we are when we stand for freedoms and liberties. It doesn't mean we get to pick and choose those freedoms and take away the rights of the very individual because we believe differently or our religion thinks that we should do differently. That is what we do when we come into this Congress and we all work together to the benefit of everyone and not erode their rights and their future and their opportunities. That is what this is about.

This legislation is very simple. Let's protect those freedoms. Let's make sure we protect those States rights and allow women, healthcare providers, and employers to actually support and help one another in this country. That is what this legislation does. To say otherwise is misconstruing, it is fearmongering, and a continuing erosion of the debate of the constitutional rights and the American rights in this country right now. And that is the problem with Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come forward today to recognize the grand opening of the Stewart Indian School Cultural Center and Museum. Three miles south of Carson City, the Stewart Indian School opened in 1890 with the official purpose of addressing Indigenous education. In reality, students were made to forget their Native languages and were allowed little to no contact with family members for decades, thereby destroying important cultural and social connections. Today, Stewart Indian School is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and remains open as an important educational and historic landmark in Nevada.

After its closing in 1982, the State of Nevada assumed the property and began taking steps to reconcile its painful history with our community. Most notably, it returned 130 acres of land to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. Since then, the Nevada Indian Commission has worked hard to preserve the history and stories of its alumni. In 2008, it helped establish a self-guided walking tour of the campus, and in 2015, it worked with the Nevada State Legislature to secure funding for a museum director and curator for the location. With the help of volunteers and staff, members of this museum have worked hard to record and display only some of the 30,000 Stewart Indian School alumni stories, with many members being alumni or descendants themselves.

On May 11 of this year, the U.S. Interior Department released the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report that summarized the treatment of Indigenous children in over 400 boarding schools across the country. The report unveils heartbreaking findings. Many of these children were taken from their communities and were forced to attend these schools. While there, they often faced rampant emotional, sexual, and physical abuse. The report also makes it clear that, from the beginning, these schools were designed to strip children of their Indigenous identities. The resulting trauma impacted families for generations, and some parents went as far as refusing to teach their children their Native language or ways of life for fear that they too would be severely punished in school for expressing themselves. Stewart Indian School stands here today as one of these former 408 boarding schools.

I would like to commend the efforts of the Nevada Indian Commission, of museum directors and staff, and of alumni and their descendants who have made the official grand opening of the Stewart Indian School Cultural Center and Museum possible. It is important that we recognize the history of our community and acknowledge the testimonies of all those who continue to endure the pain and loss that resulted from decades of separation and cultural erasure. Finally, thank you to all of those who bravely shared and publicized their stories so that we may learn a bit more and work to never forget.

Mr. President, I, along with my colleague Senator Rosen, am pleased to be able to speak out today. We have both been working throughout our time here in the U.S. Senate to support Nevada's booming renewable energy industry, including our solar sector for so many of the reasons that my friend and colleague Senator Rosen highlighted right now.

There is one thing that is important to also understand, and I want to put this in perspective. In 2020, I helped to secure extensions of the investment tax credit and the residential renewable energy tax credit for solar so that we could increase private sector investments in this critical sector.

What has happened is, with this investigation--and don't get me wrong, and I think all of my colleagues feel the same way--that under the statute, under the code, the Commerce Department has every right to investigate this circumvention petition. That is not the issue that, for me, we are coming here today. What we are asking the administration to do, at least from my perspective, is pursuant to that very statute, under sub (f), the administrator--in this case, the Department of Commerce and their incredible staff, which they do have working on this--are required to make a determination within 300 days of the petition being filed--within 300 days of the petition being filed. What we are asking is for that swift determination to be made.

Here is why: Because we know in our State, and what I am hearing from so many of the industry in my State, it is having a chilling effect from us moving forward and being able to move forward to, quite honestly, achieve this administration's goal of aggressive decarbonization targets for this country and for our future.

What I do know is this: Because of the chilling effect it is having during this period of investigation, there are a couple of things that are happening. In the solar industry right now, everything is on hold. There are concerns that, depending on how the outcome of this investigation rolls out, there could be retroactive tariffs applied to these solar industries, more costs to these solar industries. So, of course, any business is going to say, wait, I don't know in the industry what the lay of the land is right now, what my costs are going to be, so I am going to stop moving forward until I know the results of that investigation, because if there are retroactive tariffs, retroactive costs to me, I want to be able to know about that as a business owner.

Here is the other thing: Because of this chilling effect, because nothing is moving forward, I talked about the fact that we actually passed, under the previous administration, in 2020, extensions of the investment tax credit and the residential renewable energy tax credit for solar. So we gave incentives to the solar industry in 2021 and 2022, at 26 percent so that we can build up our solar industry; so that we can reduce our carbon footprint; so we can meet our decarbonization aggressive goals that we had. And then at 26 percent, they are entitled to that tax credit from years 2021 to 2022, and then it goes down to 22 percent in year 2023, down to 10 percent in year 2024 for commercial, and 0 percent for 2024 residential. If nothing is moving forward, nobody is getting the benefits of that investment tax credit that we fought so hard for under the previous administration to move forward with.

Here is what our challenge is in this country: Yes, we are all here because we want to move forward with this decarbonization. We want to move forward with clean energy. Solar is a way to do that. But we need a ramp to get there. We cannot shut off the components, the modules, the panels--everything we need. And 80 percent of those panels come from outside of this country. We cannot shut it down overnight and expect our small solar manufacturing companies to achieve the capacity that we need in this country to continue to move forward. So we need a longer ramp. We need to figure out, working together, how we make this happen, with our ultimate goal being reducing that carbon footprint in this country, bringing back that supply chain and building and making it in America again, all of those panels, the modules, everything that we need for solar. But it can't be done overnight.

Yes, we have put those investments out there to bring that manufacturing here. Yes, we have a new plant going in in Ohio, which is fantastic. But I will tell you, that one plant alone isn't enough to achieve what we need in capacity for the solar industry in this country.

So as we stand here, what is happening is that nothing is moving forward, and we now have a potential of losing out potentially to other countries and slowing down a process that we need to reach our clean energy goals for this country.

That is why so many of my colleagues, including in Nevada but across the country, are coming up and talking with the administration. What we are just asking is for the administration to understand the challenges that we are facing right now but at the same time, make a swift, determined investigation and action. Do it quickly, quickly, so that we can move forward, so that the solar industry has the information that it needs.

Why are we so vocal about this? I will tell you, Nevada's solar industry is the largest in the Nation. The industry supports more jobs per capita in my State than in any other. Many of those are union jobs, and they are on hold right now, and nothing is moving forward right now. That is not, I don't believe, the intent of the administration or what we have been trying to achieve here at the end of the day as we look forward to a clean energy economy.

I know this industry in my State makes our economy much stronger and more resilient. Solar and other renewables help us meet our climate goals and enhance our energy independence in this country, which we need now more than ever. An investment in renewable energy is lowering energy costs for Nevadans across the State.

Right now, my concern is because of the hundreds of union-trained workers whose progress on building out critical solar capacity will be at risk if they can't get the material they need to move forward quickly--we are slowing down not only the potential to meet that clean energy future, but we are slowing our economy, and we are putting too many of our good-paying union workers out of jobs right now.

So my request, and I believe with my colleagues, was that we are asking the Commerce Department just to make a swift decision here. Yes, they should be doing this. Yes, this is their right under the statute. Yes, the circumvention petition is important so that we can prevent any type of dumping by other countries and flooding our market. Absolutely, I agree. But within the provisions of the trade laws that we have right now and the statute, the Commerce Department rightly does the investigation, but they can do it quickly. And that is all we are asking here.

I yield the floor.