Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 133, Confirmation of Darrel Papillion of LA to be U.S. District Judge. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 134, Motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 45. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 135. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay. Joint Resolution, H.J. Res. 45, forces Federal student loan borrowers across Colorado to repay payments and interest and retroactively disqualify months of credit towards Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Income- Driven Repayment Forgiveness Programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 46 through 52, No. 82 through No. 107, No. 110 through No. 113, No. 133 through No. 139; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I think this is now the fifth time that I have been out here with the Senator from Alabama. We started this off some time ago, and we obviously have a profound and fundamental disagreement here. You know, I am deeply worried about this because I don't think this is actually about the Senators who are here. It is about people serving in our Armed Forces. It is about people living in the United States of America, and it is about some really fundamental things that have changed in the United States.

The Senators on the other side of the aisle, tonight, have been talking about a 40-year consensus about the funding of abortions by the Federal Government, which is not actually even at issue in this discussion because that is not part of the rules that have been changed.

I think that even the Senator from Utah's language here suggests that he knows that about the rules that have been proposed by the Department of Defense.

But the reason we are on this floor again is that the Senator from Alabama has said he will never compromise, and there is nothing that can convince him to change his mind, that he will be out here as long as it takes.

And let's ask the question: What is he defending? What is he defending? His position is that we shouldn't pay a travel allowance for members of the armed services who are going from a State that banned abortion to a State where they can get reproductive healthcare. He is against that, so he is holding up every single flag officer in the United States of America as a result of that--a tactic that has never been used in the history of the U.S. Senate in 230 years or more than that. That is what he is using because he is so offended that people can have their travel covered for this procedure.

He has never come here to object to the fact that people can get their travel covered for all kinds of medical procedures, even though none of those procedures are written into the underlying statute by the U.S. Congress because that is not our job. We delegate that to the Department of Defense.

So he is going to be out here, and he is going to fight this until there is no travel allowance for people who need to travel. They have to cover it on their own dime, just like they have to cover that reproductive surgery or abortion on their own dime, despite what the Senator from Alabama said. He is going to be out here until it all freezes over, until he ensures that--you just heard him say it--anybody who leaves has to take paid leave.

Let's be precise about it. Women who leave to travel to another State where an abortion is legal, under his scenario, will have to pay for that travel themselves even though we pay for that travel for all kinds of other things. He will be out here fighting this, making sure that not a single flag officer can ever be promoted in the Department of Defense, no matter who it is, no matter how important it is, until he is assured that women in the Defense Department are stripped of the ability to have a little bit of extra time to talk to their commanding officer when they are confronting one of the most difficult decisions anybody can make.

Those are the three rules that are at issue here--travel that is paid for, a little bit of extra time, and some paid leave.

Why are we having this debate? We are having this debate because for the first time in the history of the United States since Reconstruction, we have lost a fundamental freedom, we have lost a fundamental right, and that is the result of the Dobbs decision.

People come out here, and they are talking about a 40-year consensus on this or that. We had a 50-year consensus in this country about a woman's access to abortion. We had a 50-year consensus among the courts and among the American people about what a woman's right to choose looked like. And we had a 40-year campaign, year after year after year, to create a U.S. Supreme Court--a majority of whom subscribe to, in my opinion, the mythological legal doctrine of originalism--to strip the American people of that right, to strip the American people of that freedom, because if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today. That has dramatically upset the expectations of the American people, including those who serve in uniform.

Tragically, in my opinion--and this is one of those things where people can have fundamental moral disagreements and fundamental religious disagreements and fundamental positions that are totally different from one another, which I completely respect. I resolved these things in my own mind with the idea that this is a decision a woman should be left to make with her doctor. That is what I believe. But in the wake of this decision that was fought for for so long by so many politicians in America--50 years or more than 50 years--we have now lost that fundamental freedom. We have now lost that fundamental right. It is no longer a choice between a woman and her doctor.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, there are 18 States that have now banned abortion--18 States. There are nine States--I just got a thumbs- up on the other side from the staff--there are nine States that have banned abortion without any exception for rape or incest.

The Senator from Alabama's State is a State that has banned abortion. It is a State where there is no exception for rape or incest. It is a State where, if you are a doctor and you have performed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 years.

My State is totally different from that. My State is the first State in America, I think, that codified a woman's right to choose before Roe was even decided, in our State. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, we are the first State to say that we believe this should be a choice between a woman and her doctor.

We are going to fight that out in the country. A majority of people support the position that Colorado has taken. Fifty-five percent of the people in Alabama support the ability of women to be able to make this choice under some circumstances. Yet the Senator from Alabama has decided that his remedy can force his view of morality and of principle. His perspective is that he is going to do something that no Senator has done for 230 years, which is to hold up every flag officer's promotion in the Department of Defense.

Last week, seven former Secretaries of Defense, Republicans and Democrats, said that this block is ``harming military readiness and risks damaging U.S. national security.'' I am not saying that. I am not saying that. Seven former Secretaries of Defense have said that.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record so everybody can see that it is both Republicans and Democrats who are saying that about the unprecedented hold being put here by the Senator from Alabama.

I also want to say finally, and I will stop, that the rules the Department of Defense has had to put in place in the wake of the Dobbs decision stripping women of this fundamental freedom, stripping women of this fundamental right--these rules don't do what my colleagues are saying they are going to do.

Once again, it is a travel allowance. It says you can take paid leave. It says you can have a little bit more time to notify your commanding officer. That is all it is saying. My colleague from Alabama has unleashed the equivalent of this procedural nuclear weapon because that offends his principles, that offends his sense of what is right.

I am not here to debate with him his sense of what is right, but I do believe that it is right that people who are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, people who have enlisted to defend this country, who do not have the right to pick and choose which State they are going to be in and serve in, whether it is--of all people in this country, of all people in this country--I have heard people say--in fact, I even heard the Senator from Utah say this; I have read him saying this--that one of the great things about living in America is that you can move from State to State. That is one of the great things of our federalist system, is you can take advantage of the laws that are consistent with your values and get away from the ones that are not. That is not true for our men and women in the military.

This is one of the practical consequences that the Dobbs majority never grappled with because they applied their view of originalism to the fundamental--to the issues we are facing today as a country.

The very first call I got after that decision was made--almost the first call--was from a woman who had served as an officer in the Air Force who told me a personal story that she had been through. She said to me: Michael, they have no idea what the effect of readiness is going to be on our Armed Forces. They have no idea.

I don't think they would have ever believed that it would have been Members of the U.S. Senate who would have affected the readiness in the wake of Dobbs the way that it is being done tonight.

So I would ask respectfully for the Senator from Alabama to withdraw his

hold, to allow the Senate to move forward, as it has done for the last 230 years, to approve these candidates who have themselves signed up to serve and themselves done the work to get promoted. Let's have the argument that we need to have as a nation--that we need to have as a nation--about this fundamental freedom and about this fundamental right without holding our Department of Defense hostage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the hour is late, and I am conscious that we are supposed to get off the floor. I know the staff needs to go home. So I won't belabor this.

I will say that I will put to one side, and I am sure that my colleague, my friend from Utah, would agree, that we are not talking here about a drunken frat party and the fortunes or misfortunes of an ungrateful student and their rich uncle. We are talking about people that, in real life, are having to make decisions that are the most fundamental decisions that any individual can make.

They have had 50 years' worth of expectations about what those decisions are going to look like, and those expectations have been completely upset by the Supreme Court, first, when this originalist majority ruled that if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today. It is something that, when I was in law school, I never imagined that I would ever have read out of a Supreme Court opinion, certainly not on something of this magnitude.

But then in the wake of it, 18 States banned abortion. In the wake of it, nine States banned abortion without exceptions for rape or incest. In the wake of it, in Alabama, they are saying that if doctors use chemicals for abortion, they can be prosecuted with a statute that was written to attack fentanyl or methamphetamines. And in the wake of it, Members of the U.S. Senate come to this floor and use a procedure that has never been used before in the history of America to hold up every single flag promotion just to make sure they can make it harder for somebody who is facing the most difficult decision that they can ever make; to make it harder for them to decide when they are going to talk to their superior officer; to make it harder for them to travel somewhere where, yes, they have to pay for that abortion out of their pocket; to ensure that you have to use paid leave to do it; that that is such an injustice that we are going to come out here and hold up every flag officer's promotion.

Some people, after this ruling--I never heard the Senator from Utah say this, and I am not ascribing this to him. But there were people after that ruling who said: Don't worry about this. You don't have to worry about this. This is just States' rights. It is the laboratory of the States. It is going back to the States.

And 18 States have banned abortion, and many of those States are States where people in the armed services serve. They have no choice over where they serve.

I am not the originalist on this floor tonight, but I can read the plain language of those regulations, and I could see from that plain language that there is nothing in there that pays for abortion.

Mr. President, I hope we will bring this to a close, but I would first of all say that--stating the obvious--neither the Senator from Utah nor I are a woman, and I am not going to suggest that I know how people who are women in the military necessarily feel about this.

I suspect, far less often than the person whom the Senator from Utah is concerned about, which is somebody who feels like they are somehow discriminated against because they are going to carry a child to term versus somebody who is going to face this really hard, hard, hard choice, that a much more likely feeling and sense of harm will be the complete loss of any sense of privacy that they are going to have as a result of Dobbs and the effect of Dobbs and the effect of what these people are arguing tonight on the floor of the Senate about: making it harder to travel; about saying that, no, you can't have more time to talk to your commanding officer about a decision that you have to make; no, the entire unit is going to know what it is that you are going to have to confront because, unlike every other medical procedure that we are dealing with, when it is abortion, then everybody is going to know, and your right to privacy has been eviscerated.

I guarantee you, for every single person who feels the way that the Senator from Utah suggests that some people feel, like somehow they are being discriminated against because they are

not in the position to have to deal with the most difficult decision that anybody could make, that the number of people who are concerned about what this has done to the right to privacy--and this not just in the Department of Defense but in our country--is far greater, is far greater.

And I would also just say that if States' rights were of such paramount importance, that there wouldn't be people in this country right now trying to make it illegal for States to allow people to use chemicals to perform abortions, even though that is how a majority of abortions in this country are performed.

And I don't agree with the Senator from Utah that we should have a military where I can just decide, as an individual, that I am not going to serve in a State because the laws of that State are ones that I don't agree to or I don't subscribe to or I morally disagree with. That is not how the military is supposed to work.

I would argue that is a lot more important than what the Constitution has to say about weights and measures.

I suspect there is also a reason why no Senator in the history of America, on any issue of profound importance, as this issue is, has held hostage every single flag officer promotion of the Department of Defense.

I suspect there is a reason why that has never happened before-- because we know the damage this is doing, and we know that sometimes, once you put yourself into a cul-de-sac, it is really, really hard to get out of it, especially when the majority of the American people don't agree with you on the substance and don't agree with your tactic. But that is where we are tonight.

I yield the floor.

I wrap just by saying this: I think that the choice that has been made is a practical choice that has been made in the wake of a fundamental freedom and a fundamental right being stripped from the American people, and we are not going to solve that disagreement tonight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record names of people and the positions of these ranking officers who are not going to be promoted all around the world as a result of what the Senator from Alabama has done. That is why we are here tonight.

With that, I yield the floor.

Let's do it.

Mr. President, I would ask my colleague, addressing the Senator from Utah through the Chair, where in the rules there is language that says the Department of Defense will pay for an abortion. Where is it? Because it is not in the plain text, you know, and that is the basis for this objection. That is the basis for the moral objection, if there is one, and that is the basis for the offense that the Senators have taken from the idea that the Department of Defense would steal from the Senate the ability to make these judgments on their own. I can't find anything in the plain text that says it. We checked--my office has checked again, as we have every night that I have been out here--and are assured that if a servicemember goes to another State to seek abortion services, that abortion is not paid for by the Department of Defense or by the Federal Government.

So I would ask again the Senator from Utah to show us--he can do it off the floor--where the language is that is in these rules that explicitly says that.

I appreciate the gloss that the Senator from Utah has put on the plain language of this statute, which clearly does not allow--if it did, he would have shown us that language.

I wish that Justice Alito and the other members of the Supreme Court who applied the originalist view that determined that because it doesn't say a woman's right to choose in the Constitution, there must not be such a fundamental right--I wish they had used the sort of statutory interpretation my colleague from Utah has chosen this evening. Similarly, with the approach to federalism, you know, it all depends on what the underlying issue happens to be.

With that, I yield the floor.

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 immediate consideration of Calendar No. 60, S. 467.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 214, 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 table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the

time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Daniel nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m. and that if cloture is invoked on the Daniel nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; further, if cloture is invoked on the Papillion nomination, the confirmation vote be at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Republican leader; that following the cloture vote on the Papillion nomination, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate resume legislative session to consider Calendar No. 77, S.J. Res. 18; and that at 5 p.m., the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution; further, that upon disposition of the joint resolution, the Senate resume executive session and that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each rollcall vote.

For the information of the Senate, there will be one vote at 11:30 a.m., two votes at 2:30 p.m., and two votes at 5 p.m.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 46 through No. 52, No. 82 through No. 107, No. 110 through No. 113, No. 130 through No. 139; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I want to say thank you to my colleagues from Alabama and Kansas for being out here on the floor today. I regret that we are here with this conflict and this confrontation, but I think that it reflects the deep divisions that exist in this country when it comes to abortion. That is something that I have always said that I understand deeply; that I respect people's different points of view when it comes to abortion in the United States. I do.

It has led me to conclude--and I know that not everybody agrees with this, although the majority of Americans certainly agree with this. The majority of Coloradans agree with this. It has led me to conclude that this is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. That is who should make the decision. It shouldn't be made by the government.

But at the same time I realize there are differences of opinion. I hope that people on the other side realize that there are differences of opinion here too.

But unlike the position that my colleague from Alabama espouses on the Senate floor, he is not with the majority of Americans on this issue. That might be a point of pride for him.

But I want to first call attention to the reason we are here tonight, which is that I just asked for unanimous consent to move forward the promotions of the flag officers at the Department of Defense. This is the fourth time that I have been on this floor asking us to do what Senates have done for 230 years. Never in the history of the United States of America, literally, never in the history of the United States of America has there been a Senator who put a blanket hold on every single flag officer at the Department of Defense. Talk about playing politics.

By the way, I will correct the record for a third time, if not the fourth time. My hold had nothing to do with flag officers. Mine had to do with a political appointee. You can look it up. I will find that article, and I will put it in the record again.

In contrast to my hold, what the Senator from Alabama is doing and now the Senator from Kansas and the rest of the people who are supporting this, including Members of the House of Representatives who were here tonight, is a blanket hold on 200 military flag officers--a blanket hold on 200 military flag officers. That has never happened in the history of the United States.

These are really important command positions. They are really important. I am not going to go through all of them. The leader of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is on this list. The leader of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific is on this list. These are positions that are critical to checking Iran and to checking China as well.

I was just in Bahrain. We visited with people with the Fifth Fleet, including people from Colorado who are stationed there. We know how important the mission is. I assume they know how important the mission is.

I have heard them say out here--the Senator from Louisiana before-- that it is not the generals who are important; it is the enlisted people who are important. Both are important. Both are important. You can't tell me that it is a good idea to have the Fifth Fleet not have the commander that it is supposed to have, not to mention the fact

that people who have spent their entire lives--their entire lives-- learning what is needed to get promoted into a position with that kind of trust, that kind of duty and patriotic responsibility, and when it comes time for them to fulfill their mission, that some politician on the floor of the Senate says: No, I am putting a blanket hold on you and 200 other people because of my politics.

I will come back to that in a second.

Our military representative to NATO is on this list. The future Director of Intelligence at U.S. Cyber Command is on this list. So it is not surprising that, while the Senator from Alabama may have his own particular view about military readiness, other observers of what is going on here, including veterans of the DOD, are saying it is the Senator from Alabama who is affecting our readiness.

Just last week, seven former Pentagon Chiefs from Republican and Democratic administrations--both Republicans and Democrats--sent a letter saying that the Senator from Alabama's block is ``harming military readiness and risks damaging U.S. national security.'' That is not me. That is them.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Quote:

Leaving these and many other senior positions in doubt at a

time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty sends the wrong

message to our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence.

Today--today--the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin, wrote:

The longer that this hold persists, the greater the risk

the U.S. military runs in every theater, in every domain, in

every Service.

He said that this uncertainty ``diminishes our global standing as the strongest military in the world.''

I don't think it is surprising that he would say that or that it is political that he would say that. It is stating the obvious when you can't do something that we have done for 230 years because of politics that has infected the floor of the Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have Secretary Austin's letter printed in the Record.

Today, any American who wants to read this stuff can actually read all of it and see all of it.

The Senator from Alabama--and he said it again tonight--has said that he will continue to hold these promotions for ``as long as it takes''-- ``for as long as it takes''--to which, I think, the obvious question is, As long as it takes to what? What is the political principle for which he is on the floor, using the unprecedented tactic of holding up every single flag promotion in the DOD and our U.S. military? What is it that he is trying to do? What principle is he trying to enshrine?

The rule that he is objecting to and the rule that my colleague from Kansas is also objecting to is a rule that does three things.

One thing it does is to say, if you are in need of reproductive healthcare and you are a woman who is in our military, that you can take paid leave to be able to do that. You don't have to take unpaid leave to travel to a place if you are stationed in, for example, a place like Alabama where abortion is illegal--I think only with the exception for the life of the mother.

There is no exception for rape or incest if you are serving in a State like Alabama--where a doctor could go to prison for 99 years for performing an abortion, where they are having debates down there about whether or not they can use laws that are written for fentanyl and apply them to the use of chemicals during an abortion. It is a State in which, by the way, a majority of Alabamians says there should be some access to abortion.

But if you are somebody who is stationed there through no fault of your own, you don't get to decide where you are going to be if you sign up and you get sent to, for example, Alabama. What the Secretary of Defense said was, OK. We are going to pass a rule that says that if you have to take leave, you can take paid leave.

We are going to say that if you need to take a minute to think about whether you want to talk to your superior officer about the condition that you are in and the procedure that you have to take, then you can take a little bit longer to do that, to tell your commanding officer.

We are saying, also, that we can pay for your travel just like we do for other care--to leave your duty station and go someplace else. Those are the three things.

So when he says ``as long as it takes''--I gather what he means when

he says ``withdraw the memo''--it is as long as it takes to make sure that a woman cannot travel from her duty station to someplace else and have that paid for like other procedures; that a woman has to take unpaid leave--she can't get paid leave even though she can for other procedures; and that a woman has to tell her commanding officer the minute that she learns of this.

Those are the three things. Those are the three things. That is why he is objecting to every single flag officer's promotion. I don't know what to do about that because I will bet you--I can't prove it, but in standing here tonight, I will bet you that 80 percent of the American people, no matter what their positions are on the underlying issue here, would agree with those three policies.

By the way, I didn't compare abortion to bunions or abortion to LASIK. What I said was those other procedures are things to which the same rules apply. That is what I said. The reason that is important to this debate and to the discussion that we are having right now is that my colleague from Alabama is saying that if it doesn't say ``reproductive services'' or ``reproductive healthcare'' or ``abortion'' in the statute books, that means that there is no ability for the Secretary of Defense to write rules to protect the rights of our enlisted--in this case, enlisted women. That is what he is saying.

What I have pointed out is that there is no place in the statute that says that you can go get your foot work done or LASIK surgery. That is not in the statute because this body and the House of Representatives confers judgment for this on the leaders of the Defense Department. And, unlike the Senator from Alabama, I actually have a lot of sympathy for the minefield that they are having to navigate.

By the way, one other thing I just want to point out for the record so that it is absolutely clear is that nothing in this rule says that the U.S. Government is paying for an abortion. There is nothing in this. There is nothing in these three things. So to anybody on that side who says that is what this is about, that is a debate for another day. That is not the debate for this.

But why would I say I have sympathy? Why do I have sympathy? I have sympathy because something has happened in America that I could never have imagined 30 years ago. I don't remember now when it was 30 years ago--1997? I can't do the math. I hope the pages can do the math--1993? I don't even have the date right. It was when I was in law school. Something has happened that I never would have imagined, and that is that the Supreme Court of the United States, for the first time in our history--for the first time since Reconstruction--has ripped away from the American people a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom. When I was the pages' age here, I never would have imagined that would have happened. When I was in law school, I never imagined that would have happened.

That is because, from our founding until today, in general, this country's history has always been about expanding freedoms and expanding rights and making our country more democratic, more fair, and more free. But, after a 50-year campaign--none of this was accidental. After a 50-year campaign led by some people on the other side of the aisle here, they finally got what they wanted, which is Roe v. Wade's being overturned, and we are having to deal with the consequences of that as a society, as a country. The Secretary of Defense is having to deal with that.

When they say there has been a 40-year consensus, that consensus was ripped violently from the American people by the Supreme Court. It stripped us of a 50-year consensus when it came to a woman's right to choose, when it came to that fundamental freedom. Then there were some people on the other side of the aisle who said: Don't be so hysterical. This is just returning it to the States. You don't need to worry about it.

I don't think that was ever a genuine thing to say, but let's look at the facts here. Eighteen States have banned abortion since this happened. Nine of those States have no exceptions for rape or incest. In Texas, they are paying $10,000 bounties if your friend or your neighbor or the person down the street reports on you and reports that you are going to pursue something that has been a fundamental right in the United States of America for 50 years--something that has been a fundamental right in the State of Colorado, the State that I represent.

My colleague says that I am pro-abortion. That is not why I am out here. That is not why I am out here. I am sure he didn't mean to say that. I am out here because I believe that my judgment isn't better than the judgment of a woman and her doctor and that the government shouldn't be making the decision. I am proud to live in a State that was one of the first States--probably, I think, the first State in America--to enact a woman's right to choose even before Roe v. Wade was passed, and it was the first State to codify Roe v. Wade after--after-- the Supreme Court overturned that precedent.

Think about what is happening in Florida. It is one of the biggest States in America. It is one of the largest States. I can't remember. Is it the third largest State or the fourth largest State? It is huge. It is huge. They have just banned abortion in Florida at 6 weeks-- banned it at 6 weeks. When I was the age of these pages and when I was in law school, that would have been unimaginable.

There might be a reason the Governor down there signed that law at 11 o'clock at night. There might be a reason--because 65 percent of Floridians think it is a terrible idea. They think that this should be a decision that is made between a woman and her doctor. They don't need their Governor telling them. They don't need a Senator telling them. They don't need the Federal Government telling them or weighing in on this incredibly difficult decision.

And we are here tonight because, as a result of that--I would say-- balancing act, that commonsense approach that the Secretary of Defense has tried to take here when it comes to the people who are serving in our military, we now face real harm to our national security.

Part of the challenge is the recruitment challenge that my colleagues talk about on the Republican side. And I can tell you the studies that have been done that have asked the question about what the reversal of Dobbs is going to mean for recruitment in the Department of Defense. The Presiding Officer won't be surprised to know it is not good. It is not going to make matters better if you think that you can be assigned to a State where they have outlawed abortion or they are saying that doctors can get a 99-year prison sentence or there are no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the mother; or you are in Florida, and now you have a 6-week ban. That may affect the recruiting that goes on in the U.S. military, not to mention the 700,000 civilians who serve in the Department of Defense.

Servicemembers don't decide where they are going to serve; DOD decides. Before Dobbs, our troops at least had some assurance. Today, they don't have any assurance. That is why we are here.

So any talk of this 40-year consensus ignores completely what has happened, and what has happened is the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

I just want to say to my colleagues, tonight, that I think it is important for the American people to understand, it is important for the next generation of Americans to understand, that this did not happen by accident. For 50 years, there has been a campaign in America to strip us of this fundamental right, to strip us of this fundamental freedom.

When I was in law school, in the early 1990s, it was just after this new legal doctrine had been invented in America called originalism. I have said here on the floor that I think whoever came up with that name should get the Pulitzer Prize for political names. It is genius. It is genius because the idea is that, somehow, by putting on your originalist view of the world, you are going to be able to divine what the Founding Fathers were writing when they wrote the Constitution; that, if you are a judge, you are restricted to what they refer to as the plain meaning of the Constitution; and that, if you can't get to the plain meaning, you should be able to divine their intention as close to the text as possible, as if it is possible to divine the original intent of the Founders, because, if you are somebody who believes that you can do

that, you are channeling George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin or John Adams; that you have a leg up on anybody else who is trying to interpret what the Constitution says because, if you know what they were originally saying, if you have that secret decoder ring to tell you what they were originally saying, then that gives you an elevated position over anybody else who might disagree with you. In fact, there isn't really room for disagreement since you have divined what the Founders believed.

I have no idea where the pages are in their history lessons on the American Constitution. I hope they do. I am sure they do. But anybody who has read anything about the Constitution of the United States knows that almost every word is a product of compromise. Almost every word is a product of compromise.

There are some things in there where it is not confusing about what they said. I owe my friend Angus King for this. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that he wrote, my colleague from Maine.

There are supposed to be--not supposed to be; there are-- there are two Senators from every State. That is in the Constitution. I don't think we are going to disagree about what that means.

I know that people on the floor staff tonight are thinking: I wish there was one Senator from Colorado who would stop talking.

And I will stop talking. But that is what it says, and I can read the plain meaning of that--``two Senators.'' But it becomes less clear when the words are things like--again, credit to Angus King--``due process,'' or when the words don't even show up in the Constitution of the United States--``Air Force''--because they didn't have a single plane when they wrote the Constitution of the United States.

I think that Thomas Jefferson's view of this was certainly closer to mine than some others, which was that they expected the government to evolve. They expected the interpretation of these documents, over time, to evolve. That is a good reminder, by the way, of the disagreements that the Founders had, originally.

As to their original intent, some of them were slaveholders, in the case of Thomas Jefferson, in the case of George Washington, in the case of Madison. Some of them were abolitionists, in the case of John Adams. But that was a fundamental thing that ended up being wrestled to a horrendous compromise that allowed slavery to continue in the United States of America, and the results of that horrible compromise are going to be with us for the rest of our days.

But if you had told me when I was in law school that a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States would subscribe to originalism, I wouldn't have believed it. I would not have believed it--maybe one Justice. There had never been a Justice on the Court who ever signed up to that thing called originalism because it hadn't been invented yet. You know, it had just been invented.

But I read Justice Alito's majority opinion for the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case, and, man, he believes it because the fundamental conviction is: If it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today; it is not a right today. That is what the originalist's view would be.

The dissent points out that the men--the men, the men--who ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 ``did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women's rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification . . . it consigns women to second-class citizenship.''

By definition, how can that not be true? Women were second-class citizens when the Constitution was written. They were second-class citizens when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It took women in this country another 50 years--almost, almost--after a hundred years of fighting for it, to get the right to vote in America, the self-evident right to vote.

And because the Supreme Court majority didn't have to wrestle with the realities of this freedom, the realities of this right, because for them the only pertinent question was: Was it around in 1868? That is not completely unfair to them; they were asking a question like was it around 300 years, 400 years ago but ignoring the 50 years that it had been a right, that it had been a freedom in the United States of America. They didn't have to contend, nor did they want to contend, with the effects their decision was going to have on everyday people in the United States of America, including people who served in our military.

One of the very first calls I got after Dobbs was decided was from a woman whom I know who was an officer in the Air Force, who called me and said me: Michael, let me tell you a story about my life and decisions I had to make. And, now, what are people going to do?

We talked about the privacy issues that were at stake. Those aren't even touched on here.

If I were in charge, I would hope that we would have something in there about privacy. We don't have anything. There is not even anything about privacy. Everybody in the unit is going to know everything that there is to know.

She wanted to talk about that, but what she really wanted to talk about is readiness; this is going to affect our readiness.

In response to that concern, the Pentagon drew up these three policies: travel allowances for servicemembers, as I mentioned; being able to take your absence without unpaid leave; and more time for servicemembers to be able to tell their commanding officers. That is all it is.

Now the Senator from Alabama is out here saying that, you know, it is making the DOD into an abortion factory, or--he didn't say it tonight, but he said it before--into an abortion travel agency, and that is why he is holding up these 200 flag officers.

I am really worried--I am really worried--about what the implications of this are because I don't know what is going to make him stop, and I don't know what damage is going to be done to our national defense in the meantime.

I will say I believe very strongly that this country should codify women's rights to choose at the national level. I believe that. I believe that. Most Americans agree with that position. Most Americans disagree with the Supreme Court. Most Americans disagree with the 50- year campaign that has reversed Roe v. Wade.

We have to adjust to this new reality. It is not about evading laws or evading statutes. It is about supporting the men and women in our military, in our armed services. That is what this is about. That is what this is about.

To hold hostage the promotions of flag officers at DOD because of your particular view of a woman's right to choose or whether Dobbs was rightly

decided by the originalist majority that now sits on the Supreme Court--that is pretty tough, man. That is pretty tough. It is tough enough that this right has been stripped and this freedom has been stripped.

I think there are people who thought it wasn't really going to happen in America. I said I thought it wasn't going to happen. I didn't. I didn't. When I was the age of the pages here, when I was in law school and college, the last thing from my mind is that this would happen. I think it is surprising to the American people, and I think it would be very surprising to the American people if they knew that there was a Member of the U.S. Senate using a procedure that has never been used in the history of our country to try to impose their view of social policy.

And I don't think the American people should accept this. I will tell you, I know that Colorado doesn't accept this. In Colorado, as I said earlier, we protect reproductive care for servicemembers. We protect it for everybody in my State, and we do everything we can to protect our readiness as well.

We are home, in Colorado, to the U.S. Air Force Academy; to Fort Carson, to Schriever, to Peterson, to Buckley; and to Space Command. In the case of Space Command, we have a live example of how the Supreme Court's decision could hurt our national security. This is one of the saddest stories that I know. I am sorry to be here tonight telling this story because I think decisions about where to locate our military installations should be made in the national security interest of the United States of America. That is what I believe. It is devastating to think that we could have had a situation where elected leaders-- politicians, a President--could play politics instead of making a decision in our national security, but in the case of Space Command, that is exactly what happened.

Every top general in the Air Force who was asked recommended Peterson in Colorado Springs as the home for Space Command, and there were three reasons. One was, it could get stood up faster than if it were moved anywhere else; it was going to be cheaper to repurpose buildings that were there; and because they were also concerned that if they moved it from Colorado, there would be massive attrition, both in the DOD workforce and the civilian workforce. That was their conclusion. That was their conclusion: Leave it in Colorado. And President Trump overruled them. Every general said: Leave it in Colorado. They went into the White House. The President made a different decision and said: Move it to Alabama. Let's send Space Command to Alabama.

How do I know he made the decision on politics, not on national security? How do we know that? Well, he went first on a radio program called--this is President Trump. He went on a radio program called the ``Rick & Bubba Show,'' and they asked him, and he said: I singlehandedly moved it to Alabama. They wanted it to be somewhere else, but I singlehandedly moved it to Alabama.

The GAO and DOD's own inspector general confirmed these facts-- confirmed these facts--about the generals saying it should be in Colorado and President Trump saying: I singlehandedly made the decision.

Mayor John Suthers, who is the mayor of Colorado Springs, confirmed these facts. In fact, in a letter to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, here is what Mayor Suthers wrote: In the spring of 2019, President Trump told him that ``despite any process the Air Force was pursuing, he''--President Trump--``would make the decision `personally', and the only question is whether it would be before or after the 2020 election.''

In February 2020 when Mayor Suthers--not that it matters, but just for the record, Mayor Suthers is a Republican mayor. This is not a Democratic mayor who is recalling these statements by President Trump; it is a Republican mayor.

In February 2020 when Mayor Suthers again made his case to President Trump to keep Space Command in Colorado, Trump asked him if he was a Republican.

He is a Republican. I don't know why that mattered, but he is a Republican.

When Mayor Suthers replied that he was, President Trump asked what President Trump's chances were of carrying Colorado in the 2020 election. After Mayor Suthers responded that his chances were ``uncertain,'' he noticed that made the President seem ``perturbed.'' President Trump said again he would make the decision after the 2020 election and he wanted ``to see how it [turned] out''--to see how the election turned out.

The generals all recommended Colorado. They went into the White House. Donald Trump, President Trump, overturned what they said, and, in his own language, we know the reason why.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, Madam President.

Madam President, and instead of removing this stain of politics from this decision, DOD, I am sad to say, has proceeded as if nothing were wrong, as if there were just a garden-variety bureaucratic process that they are going through, an inevitable outcome that preserves that political judgment, which would be a horrendous precedent for our country--horrendous. It would ratify a political decision that should have been a decision made in the interests of our national security. It would be a green light for future Presidents to do that kind of thing.

There are estimates that the attrition could be as much as 80 percent if you move this from Colorado to Alabama. The reason this comes up in the context of this debate is that, in Colorado, we have preserved a woman's right to choose. In Alabama, they have banned it--no exceptions for rape or incest. And now the Representatives, the

Senators from Alabama don't want anybody to be able to pursue their interests and their judgments about their own healthcare.

President Trump's decision would be a self-inflicted wound as we face a major land war in Ukraine and the saber-rattling that we are hearing in the Pacific. Every day that goes by, there is another article about how critically important our space assets are in this fight for freedom all around the world.

I am really, really pleased that President Biden is coming to Colorado Springs next month to speak to the graduating class of the Air Force Academy, and I hope that is going to give us the opportunity to learn about this decision and how harmful it was and give us the chance to restore integrity to the process--to ensure that national security, not politics, drives our basing decision--and at the same time give us the chance once again to stand on the side of expanding rights and expanding opportunity in America, not restricting it.

The Supreme Court had no interest--had no interest--in grappling with the consequences of their ruling on our country, on our society, on the men and women in uniform, on our national security. They didn't have to because if it wasn't a right in 1868, it is not a right today; if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today.

The men and women in our 21st-century Department of Defense deserve better than that. The men and women who have signed up to serve this country selflessly deserve better than that.

I heard my colleague from across the aisle say that this was a country about the stronger defending the weaker. I don't think that is what this is about. The responsibility each one of us has--each one of us has--whether we are born strong or weak or rich or poor or in Colorado or in Alabama, to uphold our national security, to uphold our democracy, to make sure that we land on the side of our highest ideals.

I think most people feel like there has been too much politics in America lately. I think people would see that they have fundamental disagreements with each other about a woman's right to choose or an endless number of things, but I also think people could understand what would happen if, instead of continuing to debate, continuing to have a conversation, that our attitude was ``I am just taking my ball and going home'' or, in the case of the Senator from Alabama, ``I am going to hold up 200 flag officers who have been duly promoted in our Department of Defense.''

So I don't know how this is going to end, Madam President. This is not a great day in the history of the U.S. Senate. There is a reason why all of our colleagues going back for 230 years haven't put the kind of hold that we have seen put on today.

It is staggering to me that, at a moment when the majority of Americans are saying that they think the decision in Dobbs was wrongly decided, that they think this decision should be made between a woman and her doctor, that we would be out here on the floor of the Senate using tactics that nobody has ever used before to impose one's personal view on the rest of the country.

I would ask that the Senator from Alabama reconsider the position he has taken, and I would ask the Biden administration to undo the terrible political decision President Trump himself said he was making singlehandedly, over the objection of the generals in the Air Force.

Now, in the wake of the decision in Dobbs and seeing what the intention is among some folks on the other side of the aisle, there is no excuse to picking up this military installation and moving it all the way across the country, the United States of America, just to ensure that women don't have the free exercise of their freedom and to ensure that it would be delayed as a result of going there and that we will be less safe as a result of it going there.

I know the temptation is strong to not overturn the previous decision because people, I think, are worried about looking political. It would be political to keep this political decision in place. They need to listen to the words of the Republican mayor, John Suthers; listen to Donald Trump's own words; listen to what the generals said.

But this is the fourth time I have been out here, Madam President, on this issue, and I am going to keep coming back as long as it takes. I appreciate your patience and your indulgence this evening.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam 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.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary public service career of Dr. Alan S. Rudolph as he concludes his tenure as vice president for research at Colorado State University--CSU--one of the Nation's top research universities.

Dr. Rudolph received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, an MBA at George Washington University, and a doctorate in zoology from the University of California, Davis. As a National Research Council postdoctoral fellow, his work at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory NRL showed how we can learn from organisms that survive extreme environments to protect biosensors and blood products for use in the field.

Following his time at the NRL, he was recruited to join the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency--DARPA--as chief of biological

sciences and technology, where he led new strategic efforts for investments in biosciences and biotechnology. He led seminal programs in biorobotics, including starting the design and prototype of Spot, the Boston Dynamics robotic dog, and brain machine interfaces, where he led new programs in brain-controlled prosthetics.

In 2003, he left civil service for the private sector to start new corporate biotechnology efforts with Adlyfe, an Alzheimer's diagnostics company, and Cellphire, Inc., which freeze dries blood products. In 2010, Dr. Rudolph was recruited by the Obama administration and inducted into the Senior Executive Service to lead the Department of Defense Biodefense Program as Director of the Joint Science and Technology Office for Chemical and Biological Defense. At the Pentagon, Dr. Rudolph invested in broad programs to protect the Nation, including new antibody treatments that saved the lives of three Americans in the U.S. during the Ebola outbreak in 2014. Dr. Rudolph concluded his 17- year civil service career leading the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical and Biological Science and Technology Office.

In 2012, through an international research foundation started by Dr. Rudolph, he led a project across over 30 countries to demonstrate the application of brain technology to help injured patients relearn their ability to walk in the Walk Again Project. The trial culminated at the opening of the World Cup in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where a paraplegic opened the world games by kicking a ball onto the pitch with a new prosthetic under brain control.

Dr. Rudolph's outstanding public service continued when he became vice president for research at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO, in 2013. At Colorado State, he oversaw record-breaking annual research expenditures approaching $500 million annually and representing 38 percent of the university's overall budget. During his service, he doubled the number of specialized centers and institutes, including the Center for Healthy Aging, One Health Institute, and Data Science Research Institute, and catalyzed other partnerships in mental wellness, climate adaptation, and agricultural sustainability. Today, CSU ranks among the top tier of research universities in the United States.

Dr. Rudolph has served on numerous executive-level committees and advisory boards. He was a member of the executive board for the Colorado BioScience Association, board member at Innosphere Ventures, and chairman of the board of CO-Labs, which represents 30 Federal research laboratories in the front range. He was on the board of the Colorado Energy Research Collaboratory and the Colorado Department of Education's Higher Research Alliance.

Dr. Rudolph has been recognized for his public service, including a meritorious civil service citation from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for his contributions to life sciences and national security investments. He also won numerous research awards for his scholarly publications in blood research and tissue engineering.

Dr. Rudolph has performed outstanding Federal service, showing an unwavering commitment to promoting science in service of the public, and has earned the trust and utmost respect of his colleagues and the citizens of Colorado.

I am pleased to honor Alan S. Rudolph's distinguished service and want to express a deep appreciation for his dedication, sacrifice, and outstanding service to his country in the name of science and education.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 56, S. Res. 115.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 11; 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 following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of Calendar No. 61, S.J. Res. 23, Calendar No. 62, S.J. Res. 24; that notwithstanding Rule XXII at 11 a.m., the joint resolutions be considered read a third time en bloc and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolutions in the order listed; further, upon disposition of the joint resolutions, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Garcia nomination and then immediately recess subject to the call of the Chair; that when the Senate reconvenes, there will be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination.

Madam President, for the information of the Senate, there will be two rollcall votes at 11 a.m. and one vote at approximately 1:45 p.m.

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

Madam President, I am so delighted that the Presiding Officer is in the Chair--the Senator from Nevada--who has led this fight on the floor against this incredibly counterproductive measure that the Senator from Florida has brought here--incredibly, in the name, somehow, of being tough on China.

I have seen lots of things on this floor that didn't make sense. I have seen lots of things where I have wondered about the judgment of people who were pursuing something allegedly in the interests of the American people, allegedly in the interests of American jobs, allegedly in the interests of manufacturing, allegedly because we are competing with China.

I have never seen something as counterproductive as this, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership because she comes from Nevada and I come from Colorado, and we know the jobs that are at stake here--tens of thousands of jobs that could go away--a billion dollars of tariffs, of taxes that our solar industry would have to pay as they are going out of business because of what the Senator from Florida is trying to do in the name of being tough on the Chinese.

So let's talk about that for a second. Let's think about who is actually being tough on the Chinese. One of the benefits of the way the Chinese are organized--well, they see it as a benefit; I don't see it as a benefit, but they do--is that they don't live in a democracy; they live in a totalitarian society. In that totalitarian society, they can make 5-year plans; they can make 10-year plans. Xi can say: This is what we are going to do for the next 5 years. This is what we are going to do for the next 10 years.

And I would argue that, for the 20 years that we were spending fighting those two wars in the Middle East that we probably shouldn't have been fighting for those 20 years, the Chinese were marching along and marching along and marching along, stealing our intellectual property and developing new industries and new technologies. We had our eye off the ball.

One of the things that is hard about democracy is that sometimes we can't really plan much longer than between two elections--or one election, if we are really being pathetic. But, recently, there has been a different approach here. Recently, there has been a different approach in the infrastructure bill that we passed a couple of years ago that was bipartisan. It was the first infrastructure bill of any significance since Eisenhower was our President.

We finally said: Do you know what? We need to start investing in our country again.

And all over Nevada, all over Colorado, Americans are working on our

roads and bridges--long overdue--as a result of bipartisan work, Republicans and Democrats working together.

There was another bill that we passed that was the semiconductor legislation, the so-called CHIPS Act. Some people remember--I certainly do--when I was in college, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. And back then, Madam President, for some reason, everybody thought that it was a good idea to ship everything to Southeast Asia to get it made there, that it would be a good idea to ship it to China and have it made there. That is kind of what Ronald Reagan's view of the world was.

And I regret the fact that we went down that road for decades. Now that CHIPS bill--that semiconductor bill--that is the first piece of legislation since Ronald Reagan was President that said: Stop it. We are going to bring an industry back to the United States. We are going to bring the semiconductor industry back here.

And, by the way, I hope that is not the last. I hope that is only the first. But it sure made sense to start with semiconductors because 90 percent of the most important semiconductors in our fighter jets are made in Taiwan, 110 miles off the coast of China. Ninety percent of the semiconductors in our surface ships and in our submarines are made in Taiwan, 110 miles off the coast of China. What could possibly go wrong? Yet Democrats and Republicans working together said: We are going to bring that back.

Well, we had another bill, Madam President, that I regret didn't get any Republican votes. I wish that it had. I really do wish that it had because that bill had two pieces. One was healthcare, and one was energy.

In the healthcare piece, we cut drug prices for seniors. We said we are going to cap them at $2,000. We said Medicare is going to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the American people for the first time. We capped insulin at 35 bucks a month--pretty amazing. And I am sorry some people didn't vote for that, and I don't know exactly why.

But the other part was an energy part, and, here, we were saying: We are going to compete with China. And here we were saying: We are going to lead the world in the transition that we are going to make from the fossil fuel economy that we have today to a clean energy economy; and that no country in the world is better situated to do that than the United States.

Does that mean we can turn fossil fuels off tomorrow? No. Can we turn them off yesterday? No.

I, for one, believe it is going to be really important for this country to export LNG, or liquefied natural gas, over to Europe to help keep Europe in the fight against Putin and to help replace Chinese coal. I think that is going to help us with emissions. Not everybody agrees with me on that. I believe strongly.

And I don't think there is a country in the world that is better situated--because of our abundant fossil fuels that we have today, because of our commitment to the rule of law, because of our commitment to innovation, because we are not as corrupt as a lot of the countries that we are dealing with, and because we have passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which had $270 billion of tax credits in it to drive innovation in the American economy. Because of all those things taken together, I am so happy to live in this country because we can lead that transition, and we can compete with China. We can outcompete China.

But into this sunny picture came the Biden administration, an administration that I generally support. But they, a few months ago, decided that they were going to begin an investigation into where certain solar panels came from. And the Presiding Officer and I and some others said: Hold on a second. We haven't made the transition yet. We haven't done it yet. It is going to take us 2 to 3 years to set up these manufacturing plants to build solar panels here, to make them here so we can compete with China. And, in the meantime, we have got tens of thousands of people who are swinging hammers in Nevada and Colorado and all across this country, who are climbing ladders and getting up on roofs to install solar panels to make sure that we are driving away from our reliance on fossil fuels and into a world where we are relying on wind and the Sun.

And the minute that the Biden administration did this, companies in Colorado started to say: We are going to go out of business. Companies in Nevada and New Mexico said: We are going out of business. The capital that was investing in them went away.

This isn't hypothetical. This was happening. They were saying to me and I know they were saying to the Presiding Officer: We are going to go bankrupt as a result of this policy.

We are going bankrupt as a result of this policy. We can't sell enough solar panels here in America. We can't install enough solar panels. We can't hire enough people. And now our own country is saying we are going to bring this to an end.

We went to the White House, and we said: We can't do this to tens of thousands of people all across our country. We can't do this if you are committed to fighting climate change. We can't do this if you are committed to the union workers who are installing all of those panels all over the United States.

I remember a phone call with the Presiding Officer, with the White House, where I said: This is a matter of days, not months.

To their credit, they came back, and they said: You guys were right. We need to put a moratorium in place. We need to have 2 years where we can have a transition to, you know, give us the chance to start manufacturing these panels here in America.

It is amazing to have people that strategic in our democracy, to be able to say: You know what, we passed a law--the Inflation Reduction Act--that is going to put us in the position of being able to manufacture these solar panels here, which Ronald Reagan and all those people should never have sent to China to begin with. So we are going to bring them back, but it is going to take us a little time.

In the meantime, we are going to adopt a set of policies that are going to allow the small businesses that are installing solar all over Nevada, all over Colorado, all over this country--we are going to not just allow them, we are going to celebrate the fact that they are there, and we are going the support them and give them notice.

We are going to act strategically with respect to our competition with China. And that is what we did. The combination of that moratorium and the Inflation Reduction Act--that is probably the most strategic we have been around here in decades--in decades. And now comes the Senator from Florida, who says: I am going to blow this up. I am going to compete with China by destroying the solar industry in the United States. I am going to compete with China by putting tens of thousands of people who are now working on the unemployment roll. I am going to compete with China, the Senator of Florida says, by putting a $1 billion retroactive tax on the solar industry in Nevada, in Colorado, and all across the United States of America.

That doesn't sound like competing to China. That sounds like surrender, to me. That sounds like waving the white flag, to me.

In all the history of self-inflicted wounds around here, that is just the latest example. And don't get me started on that, although I will just say parenthetically, why anybody in this Chamber or in that Chamber would think this is the moment in American history to raise interest rates on the American people, on home buyers, and on people who have car loans and people who are paying student debt, I don't know. But that is not the topic we are here for today. But it is almost nuts, especially when the status quo is going to be so great for America because the status quo is, we are going to spend the next 2 years continuing to install solar panels. We are going to spend the next 2 years standing up manufacturing all across the United States of America. I hope a bunch of that is going to be in Colorado so we are building and manufacturing these solar panels here.

So what I would say is, if you are voting with the Senator from Florida, don't do it because you are competing somehow with the Chinese. You are surrendering to the Chinese. If you are doing it because you think that we got taken to the cleaners by the Chinese in terms of the manufacturing of solar panels to begin with, I acknowledge that, but that wasn't the Biden administration's fault. They are the ones who are trying to bring it back. They are the ones who are bringing it back, just like we were the ones who brought the semiconductor industry back.

We have an incredible opportunity to go forward here, to grow the industry that we have, and to lead the world, as I said, in this transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

There is no country in the world that is better situated than the United States of America to lead that transition because of who we are, because of the natural resources we have, and because of the bill the Presiding Officer and I voted for. We shouldn't upset that. We shouldn't change that.

So I would encourage every single Senator in this Chamber, whether Democrat or Republican, to vote down this bill in the name of the competition we are in with China; to vote down this bill in the name of working people in this country; to vote down this bill in the name of our kids and grandkids, who hopefully are going to benefit from our leadership and the strategy we have been pursuing to make this transition. Let's agree together that we can find much more constructive ways to compete with our adversaries around the world.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an important part of Colorado history and of our Nation's history, the case of Francisco Maestas et al. v. George H. Shone et al. (1914)-- ``Maestas''--one of the Nation's oldest school desegregation cases.

In 1848, at the end of the Mexican-American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded most of present-day Colorado from Mexico to the United States. The resulting influx of Mexican settlers brought major economic, industrial, political, linguistic, and cultural challenges to the region, including questions regarding public education.

In the early 1910s, railroad foreman Francisco Maestas and other Mexican American parents sought to place their children into the public school on the ``White side'' of town in Alamosa, CO. After the school district repeatedly denied to enroll their children, Maestas and other parents formed the ``Spanish-American Union'' and brought together 180 parents on a petition to challenge Alamosa's school segregation. Their petition was denied, as was their attempt to seek assistance from the Colorado State superintendent. Following these denials, the community staged a boycott for 3 months to protest these injustices, to no avail.

Colorado's Constitution has long prohibited public schools from classifying and distinguishing school children based on color and race, but as the Maestas case demonstrates, school districts sometimes fell short of ensuring equity before the law. Faced with these repeated denials, the community continued to organize with the help of the Society for the Mutual Protection of Workers--SPMDTU--one of America's oldest mutual aid societies, and Father E.J. Montel, a Catholic priest, who helped them raise funds to hire legal representation and file a lawsuit against the Alamosa Board of Education.

The school district contended that since it viewed Mexican American students as part ``of the Caucasian race,'' it was not discriminating based on race but rather addressing its Spanish-speaking students' needs. However, the school district was disproven of its assertion when students answered questions in English while on the stand.

In March of 1914, the district court ruled in favor of Francisco Maestas, stating that ``the only way to destroy this feeling of discontent and bitterness which has recently grown up, is to allow all children so prepared, to attend the school nearest them''--an early and important step toward desegregation and a victory for Colorado's Mexican American community.

In recent years, bipartisan leaders in Colorado have worked to ensure this landmark case gets the recognition it deserves. After the Colorado Legislature and the State board of education recognized the case as a significant Colorado court decision, it is now taught as part of the revised social studies curriculum for all Colorado high school students. Now, schoolchildren across Colorado will learn about Colorado's early steps toward ensuring equity in education for students from all backgrounds.