Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I also ask unanimous consent for the scheduled vote to begin immediately.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to honor one of the fiercest advocates for Illinois I have ever known: Cameron Joost.

I have had the privilege of working with Cameron for the past 7 years now, and over that time, she has been my State director, my campaign manager, my sounding board, and perhaps most importantly, my friend.

It is hard to find the words to express what Cam has meant to both my office and to me. She is an expert in everything from the nuanced politics of Illinois's smallest towns to the full range of Hill House Home nap dresses. She can tell you every detail of how the latest bill for a vote here in DC will affect Chicagoans, and she can plan the most frenetically perfect campaign RV tour that Illinois has ever seen, with 10 passengers on board ranging in age from 4 to 81 and lasting over 2 weeks. Most of all, she is our team's moral compass.

You know, all too often, when people think of American service, they only think of military service, but the truth is, service in this country isn't just limited to picking up a rifle to defend our democracy. American service also means picking up a soup spoon to feed the less fortunate, a hammer to rebuild a home destroyed by a wildfire, or, in a Cam's case, picking up a pen and notebook and going to work day after day, trying to better the lives of all those who call Illinois home. It means striving to ensure that they access the healthcare, education, SNAP benefits--you name it--that they deserve; pushing to help families recover from flooding on the Mississippi River; to help parents in Cairo get access to the safe, affordable housing their kids deserve; to help reunite Afghan refugees with their loved ones. She is ever-dedicated to serving others in every way she could.

Through it all, she has had one enduring trait: She is a problem- solver. I will never forget the first day I met her. President Obama was flying back to Springfield to deliver a speech, and I was lucky enough to catch a ride on Air Force One with the President and a few other Members of the Illinois delegation. But one thing that I knew and my colleagues did not was that it was just a one-way ticket on Air Force One. They were not flying us back, which no one else except for myself realized.

So one by one, my colleagues came up to me in the Illinois State Senate chamber, and they asked if I knew that Air Force One wasn't going back to DC and did I know how I was going to get back to DC. ``Making the 2-hour drive to St. Louis for a commercial flight,'' I told them. One by one, my colleagues followed up with ``Oh. Well, in that case, can I catch a ride with you?'' Of course I said yes, but I wasn't the one in charge of logistics or the driving. My scheduler in DC quickly reached out to one of our brandnew staffers. It was actually this staffer's first day on the job, but she was based nearby, and she had a car, a Toyota Corolla.

That was how Cameron Joost learned that not only would she be meeting me for the first time that afternoon, but she would also be in charge of driving four Members of Congress--or roughly a quarter of the entire Illinois House delegation--the 100 miles across State lines. And, oh yeah, it was in the middle of a snowstorm, and we were all the female Members of the delegation. Somehow, she got us there. Somehow, she didn't lose a single one of us. And we didn't make it easy for her. That tells you a lot of what you need to know about Cam--nerves of steel. She can handle whatever you throw at her, always doing so with the best of intentions and biggest of smiles.

In the next few weeks, Cam will move on to help lead Illinois' Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, where she will continue a career-long mission of looking out for others. While I am sad our office will no longer have Cam to ourselves, I am so, so excited to see all the good she is about to do in Springfield.

Cam, I could go on for hours about all you accomplished as our State director. Please just know this: You have made a difference. You have changed lives. And you have probably saved lives through your efforts. Through your leadership, countless veterans have received the vital healthcare and benefits they have earned, and countless families have gotten Social Security checks they desperately needed or have been reunited with loved ones who were stranded across borders or have gained access to a hot meal or a warm bed.

You have made Illinois proud. You made us all proud. I will miss you dearly, but I can't wait to follow your next steps--no longer as your boss but as your biggest fan. And I hope you will forever be willing to give me a ride in the middle of a snowstorm.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, even while smoke was still billowing from the wreckage of the Twin Towers, I knew deep within me that that attack on American soil would change not just my Nation's future but my own, and it did.

I rushed back to the assault helicopter company I commanded at the time, ready to seek out the terrorists who attacked my Nation and slaughtered civilians. I did it willingly, without hesitation, because every fiber in my being felt the need to defend my country when she was threatened.

So, today, let me be very clear. As a soldier and as someone who has always supported Israel, I strongly believe in Israel's right to defend herself and her people, especially when under attack from a terrorist organization like Hamas--a group that redefines the word ``cruelty,'' that seems to take pleasure in bloodshed, that refuses to adhere to the rule of law or international norms.

If I were an Israeli soldier--if I woke up two Saturdays ago to the sights and sounds of massacre like they did--I, too, would be desperate to defend my nation and my neighbors; I, too, would want to make sure that those who turned my children's playgrounds into battlefields, who turned the grass under my daughter's swing set from a rich green to blood red, were never able to inflict such horrors again.

I grieve for every Israeli life that was upended or, in too many cases, ended in such a horrific fashion.

There is never an excuse or justification for terrorism, none. And I will stay on this floor for as long as it takes, vote as many times as I have to, to ensure that our Israeli allies have the resources and support they need in time of war.

I am also clear-eyed about the fact that there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding just miles away in Gaza, and I recognize the urgent need to help the innocent Palestinians, who are also suffering as a result of Hamas's brutal attacks.

It is this simple: We should all be able to agree that no child deserves to starve to death or die of thirst. We should all be able to agree that no child deserves to be brutalized or burned alive, whether they live in Gaza or Tel Aviv. We should all be able to agree that no child deserves to be terrorized, whether their home is on a kibbutz or in Plainfield, IL, or behind a blockade.

Every time I have gone home from work since that awful Saturday morning, I have held my little girls as tightly as I could. I have given them one more squeeze than usual and held on to them for a couple more seconds than normal. My daughters are just 8 and 5. They don't understand why I am so upset. So I just tell them that Mommy's heart is hurting, that she is really sad right now, and that all she wants in that moment is just to hold them a little closer for a little longer.

I am haunted by the faces of the Israeli children whom Hamas terrorists abducted, just as I am by the conversations I have had with parents desperate to get their children home from the captivity of a terrorist organization.

I am haunted by the stories of the Palestinian children who have been buried in rubble, just as I am by the images of 6-year-old Wadea Al-

Fayoume, who was brutally murdered by his landlord over the weekend in my home State of Illinois because he just happened to be a Muslim--a 6- year-old who loved playing with his LEGOs, a6-year-old who could have been any one of ours.

I know many others in this Chamber, across the country, and around the world are haunted, too.

So we must--must--act with urgency to secure the sustained flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

We must--must--restore essential services like water as quickly as we can.

We must--must--ensure hostages being held in Gaza receive urgent medical treatment and are safely brought home as soon as humanly possible.

Innocent life needs to be protected consistent with the laws of armed conflict. These actions mark both moral imperatives by helping innocent civilians but also are steps toward ensuring Israel's security.

I am grateful that the administration has been working around the clock on these priorities, and I will continue to do everything in my power to support them because, during a crisis that is almost always defined by lose-lose outcomes, this could be the rare step that would actually benefit all innocent parties. It would help to get those trapped innocent Palestinian families who are mourning their own lost loved ones and who have been living with no access to basic necessities. It would get assistance to the hostages from Israel, the United States, and other nations whom we are all praying for so desperately. It would send the message that the global community is unified in ending the suffering of innocent human souls.

As someone who was shot down by an insurgent in the Middle East, I know all too well that these are the kinds of moments when the next generation of insurgents get radicalized, as groups like Hamas thrive when people are suffering the most. They take advantage of the despair and the hopelessness that they themselves manufacture, that they themselves manipulate, and they use it to recruit more to their cause.

We cannot let Hamas succeed. We cannot let the blast of missiles drown out the voices of our better angels because our hearts are big enough and our perspectives wide enough to know that Hamas's reign of terror terrorizes the little girls and boys of not just Israel but Gaza, too, as they use them as human shields.

In this moment, it is hard not to feel the darkness weighing down upon us. But for all of those in harm's way, we must channel our devastation into motivation. We must use our voices to lift up the humanity of innocent civilians, not to dehumanize those who may look or pray differently than us. We must work as hard as we can to bring about a tomorrow for both Israelis and Palestinians alike, where their skies won't be marred with missiles, and their streets won't be scarred with blood.

That is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to roll out of this Chamber, head back to my office, and keep fighting to get our hostages home. I will fight to get our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel, the aid and support they need, and I am also going to work to get basic humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Then, tonight, when I go home, I am going to hold my daughters in my arms until they wiggle free, and every moment that that hug lasts, I am going to be more aware than ever how lucky I am just to be able to squeeze them tight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the importance of the Rehabilitation Act and to recognize the law's significance as we celebrate its 50th birthday today.

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in programs that receive Federal funding. It helped lay the foundation for the Americans with Disabilities Act, which wasn't signed into law until almost two decades later. But aside from that, the anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act also serves as a reminder that we are where we are now because of the sheer willpower of disability activists from across the country--activists like my late friend Judy Heumann, whom I can't help but remember today.

Even though the Rehabilitation Act was signed into law in 1973, it was not implemented until 4 years later, and that was only after hundreds of disabled activists sat in and occupied Federal buildings across the country. At San Francisco's sit-in, which lasted for weeks, protestors like Judy refused to be moved. Authorities shut off the phone lines. They shut off the water so those protesting went thirsty. But our community stuck together and stayed strong. I am grateful these dedicated activists persisted despite difficult obstacles, and their persistence and determination should inspire our country to push further towards achieving the ultimate goal of full accessibility and inclusion.

People with disabilities continue to face discrimination every day. From lack of access to healthcare, to disparately low employment rates; from inaccessible websites and official documents, to suffering the indignity of having airlines destroy wheelchairs and assistive equipment on flights, our Nation must push past complacency and work to ensure the letter and spirit of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act are applied to all aspects of life in the 21st century.

Our community is already more than 61 million strong--a number that will continue to grow in the years ahead--because the truth is that every American is just 1 day away from becoming disabled and everyone should hope to live long enough that they eventually gain some sort of disability. Our Nation's laws and policies should reflect that. That is one reason why I am proud that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services acted on my request that Medicare finally cover seat elevation systems in power wheelchairs. It is why I am proud that the Government Accountability Office agreed to study health disparities experienced by people with disabilities. And it is why I will keep working with the disability community to honor and carry on the work of Judy and all the advocates, activists, and allies who helped get us to this point.

So here is to 50 years of the Rehabilitation Act and to everything we do in the next 50.

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

Mr. President, bottom line: This is unnecessary. There are robust existing coordination mechanisms among the IGs to ensure comprehensive oversight, provisions in the committee-passed NDAA to assist the DOD IG with enhanced hiring authorities, and $27 million in dedicated funding for oversight for each of the three IGs from DOD, State, and USAID.

The provision also includes a requirement that the lead inspector general complete a briefing to any Member of Congress within 15 days of request. This almost certainly ensures that the LIG will spend their time scheduling and briefing Members of Congress, not conducting oversight.

Lastly, as drafted, the $10 million authorization of appropriations is nonviable funding, and the offset is not valid as neither element includes a funding account for money to go to or from. So this is entirely hollow budget authority.

With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in expressing my great disappointment in my colleague from Alabama and his continuing hold on military promotions. He has argued--and I have seen him say this several times--that he is not affecting military readiness and that a hold on the promotions of senior officers does not hurt our national security, and, if it did hurt our military

readiness, that he would certainly stop the hold.

So I am here to tell you about six different jobs and the individuals nominated to those particular positions, and for people to decide whether or not they think that having these positions go unfilled with a confirmed officer is jeopardizing our military readiness.

The first position is at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. This is the Army's force modernization proponent and operational integrator for global space, missile defense, and high-altitude capabilities. It sits at the nexus of integrated deterrence between U.S. Space Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and U.S. Northern Command-- a pretty important job I would think.

To fill the position, the President has nominated MG Sean A. Gainey to be a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army and a commanding general of the U.S. Space and Missile Defense Command. Major General Gainey has served for 33 years and has moved some 15 times in those years of service. He is a graduate from the Georgia Southern University ROTC Program. In those 33 years of service, he has earned the Distinguished Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with one bronze oakleaf cluster, and the Bronze Star. He currently serves as Director of the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, Director of Fires, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, DC.

I think the U.S. Space and Missile Defense Command is a pretty important job and pretty relevant to our national security.

A second position that is being left unfilled with a confirmed nominee is that of Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, U.S. Army, head of Army Logistics.

We have been talking at length about logistics in a contested environment, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. The Army G-4 develops, implements, and oversees Army strategy, policy, plans, and programming for logistics and sustainment to enable total Army readiness today and a force modernized for the future.

To fill the position of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Army Logistics is MG Heidi Hoyle. Major General Hoyle graduated from the West Point Military Academy and embarked on a 29-year career spanning 20 different assignments, including her position as the Director of Operations within the office of the Army G-4, as well as numerous combat deployments. She has been awarded the Legion of Merit with two bronze oakleaf clusters, the Bronze Star Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. She is more than qualified to fill this position, and the position needs her in it.

Another position that is going unfilled with a confirmed officer is to be filled by BG Laurence Linton to be a major general in the U.S. Army Reserve. Brigadier General Linton is currently serving as Deputy Commanding General-Support, 88th Readiness Division at Fort Snelling, MN. Brigadier General Linton graduated from the State University of New York ROTC Program and began a 31-year career of service that included 24 different duty assignments, notably deploying to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kuwait. General Linton served most recently as Chief of Staff of Operation Warp Speed, the critical effort to accelerate COVID-19 vaccination development. General Linton has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal with silver oakleaf cluster and one bronze oakleaf cluster. I cannot think of someone more deserving of this promotion.

The President has also nominated BG Stacy M. Babcock to be a major general in the U.S. Army Reserve. Most recently, General Babcock served as the Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, KY. He graduated from the Rochester Institute of Technology ROTC Program in 1991 and has now served 32 years, a career spanning 25 different assignments, including a deployment to Bosnia and three separate deployments to Iraq. General Babcock has been awarded the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star.

The President has also nominated COL Peggy McManus to be a brigadier general in the Army Reserve. Colonel McManus serves as the Deputy Director, Senior Policy Board Advisor, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Washington, DC. Colonel McManus was commissioned in 1992 via ROTC and has now served 31 years, a career spanning 20 different assignments, including a combat tour to Iraq. Colonel McManus has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with one silver and one bronze oakleaf cluster.

The President has also nominated Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara to be lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force and Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.

Do you think that not having a confirmed officer appointed to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration is not hurting our military readiness? Of course, it is.

Major General Gebara would be responsible to the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Nuclear Deterrence Operations. He would provide direction, guidance, integration, and advocacy regarding the nuclear deterrence mission of the U.S. Air Force and engage with joint and interagency partners for nuclear enterprise solutions--only if Senator Tuberville would allow him to take up this position.

And, finally, I want to talk to you and read to you the background of MG Robert M. Collins, who is nominated to be a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army and Military Deputy-Director of the Army Acquisition Corps, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. If confirmed, General Collins would be the senior military adviser in Army acquisition matters. This is at a time of critical modernization by the Army. I know very well the Future Vertical Lift Program, and it is critical that we have a capable officer in this position. He is currently serving as Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management. He graduated in 1992 from the Shippensburg University ROTC Program. He has now served 31 years in uniform, spanning 21 different assignments. We need this officer in his job, in this position.

These are just a handful of individuals I am reading today. In which one of these positions does my colleague from Alabama think military readiness is not being affected, being left unfilled?

All I can say is, Senator Tuberville, please reconsider. You are indeed putting our national security, our military readiness in jeopardy by continuing this hold.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 7 minutes and that Senator Grassley be permitted to speak for 5 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today with a simple question: When exactly was the moment when military women like me no longer had the right to bodily autonomy?

Our Nation was just fine with me using my body as I saw fit when I chose

to use it to fight wars on its behalf. It was all right with me using it as I wish when I decided to risk every drop of blood in this body to fly a Black Hawk into combat. It was even OK with me losing parts of this body, leaving parts of it strewn across a battlefield in Iraq in defense of this great Nation. In fact, people thanked me for my service, for making that incredibly personal choice about my own being, my own life. I know the same is true for many of the other female servicemembers and veterans who have made the similar decision to serve our Nation.

So my question is, Precisely when do the folks pushing anti-choice policies think that we American women no longer have the basic human right to make our own decisions about our own health?

I ask because over the past year since the Supreme Court announced its Dobbs ruling, we have faced an onslaught of anti-woman, anti-choice bills that would effectively turn women into second-class citizens, rendering them incapable of adjudicating matters related to their own bodies, transforming them from people with autonomy into mere vessels subject to the political whims of lawmakers whose beliefs tend more toward insurrectionist than feminist, lawmakers who think making America great again equates to sapping away women's rights again.

This week is no exception because this week my colleagues across the aisle, led by my fellow veteran, Senator Ernst, are trying to hold our annual Defense bill negotiations hostage in an attempt to force through an extremist amendment that would overturn existing DOD policy--an amendment that would keep troops and their families who are stationed at military bases in anti-choice States from getting the resources they need to travel elsewhere to get basic reproductive healthcare.

You know, our servicemembers often move every 2 or 3 years. They don't get to choose where they are stationed. They receive orders to be somewhere. Then they pack up their rucksacks and go. And I have seen estimates that about 40 percent are assigned to bases in States that now have draconian reproductive rights laws.

If Senator Ernst's amendment to the NDAA becomes law, thousands of military women will be stripped of their right to bodily autonomy just because they have chosen to serve their country. Think about how shameful that is. Think about how disgraceful it is that so many of the same so-called leaders who applaud these women for choosing to put themselves in harm's way overseas are trying to wrest control over their bodies away from them when they are back on U.S. soil.

Think about how astounding it is that the folks backing this kind of policy seem ignorant to the hypocrisy laden in the idea that the greatest democracy in the world--a nation born out of a fight against governmental overreach and that takes pride in self-determination-- would actually strip away the right to personal freedom from the very citizens who have sworn an oath to protect others' rights, to keep others free.

When I fought in Iraq, at the beginning of our rotation, it was so early on in the war that full logistics were not yet set up. We were still living in tents and had no personal hygiene facilities other than the wet wipes we would get in care packages.

So when it came time for me to deploy, Army doctors issued me birth control patches so I could control my menstrual cycle since for the first 2 months I was set to be downrange, there would be no female sanitary support. In other words, because I wouldn't be able to get tampons, pads, or the like for those early days yet still needed to fly my missions, it advantaged the military for me to control my reproductive cycle. I was happy to do it because it was for the good of the Army, the good of the mission, and thus the good of this Nation that I love more than life itself.

But looking back, especially after this week, my takeaway is that our country was just fine with me seeking reproductive care when it suited them but only when it suited them because today we live in an America whose representatives waver even on the basic question of whether women should have access to the kind of care they readily supplied me when it fit their needs.

To me, this Republican amendment effectively punishes women for their willingness to put on the uniform. The policy is both morally corrupt and militarily shortsighted, as how could it not impact the future recruitment and retention of our Armed Forces if women understand that if they wear our Nation's colors, that if they follow orders and are stationed at whatever base they are told to report to, their fundamental rights may remain forever out of reach?

Yes, we are talking about abortions here certainly, but this amendment my colleagues are so focused on passing also impacts a range of other basic lifesaving and sometimes even life-creating reproductive care, including fertility treatments, both for those who have worn the uniform and for the partners of those who serve, or the urgent medical services needed in the tragic event they miscarry a child they do want.

So when I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle champion this policy, what I hear them say is that they either don't understand or don't care about the very real, severe effects that servicemembers and dependents could face if they can't access reproductive care.

What I hear them say is that they want to force female servicemembers to give birth whether they want to or not, whether they are ready to or not, regardless of the burden, the cost, the implications for their careers and, more importantly, their lives.

What I hear them say is that they don't believe that the readiness of women servicemembers affects our military's readiness, that they don't think recruiting women is important for the future of our military, that they don't care about the contribution women make to our Armed Forces, that they don't value the service of women, point blank.

Ultimately, sadly, that means they don't care about solving our military's recruiting challenges as much as they do about getting on the good side of anti-choice billionaires who bankroll campaigns. That is offensive and hypocritical.

These proposals are misogynistic and sadistic. These proposals are craven and cowardly. In other words, it is a perfect snapshot of today's self-interested, self-defeating GOP.

Look, we Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee have used every negotiation tactic under the Sun to try to stop our Republican colleagues from crashing down the entire Defense bill negotiations with this one poison pill. But let me be clear. We cannot pass a Defense funding bill if this amendment is hidden deep in its fine print. We have even offered to hold a separate vote on this same exact policy as a stand-alone bill--a solution that would both protect this week's larger NDAA process while also letting the rest of the Senate have a say on this single piece of legislation. But Republicans have decried this offer, calling it a ploy. It is not a ploy. We are giving them the vote they say they want.

They don't want a solution. They don't want fairness. They just want to scream and shout. They want to show off to the most fringe parts of their base, knowing that in a few days they will somehow contort reality and blame Democrats even when they are well aware that their own political agenda is at fault for Congress failing to pass this critical national defense legislation.

Just as I made my own decision about my body when I signed up to fly Black Hawks in Iraq, I am making my choice today to use my voice to say ``enough.''

We must not allow Republicans to score political points by restricting the personal freedom of the very people who have dedicated their lives to defending that most fundamental, most American ideal.

Our female servicemembers, veterans, and military families, deserve access to healthcare, regardless of what part of the country they happen to be stationed in. They deserve to have full control over their bodies here at home, just as they did when they were carrying rucksacks and M4s on those bodies overseas.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you care about the

strength of our military, if you care about defending our freedoms that have defined America since the first drop of ink was written on our Constitution, then you will vote against this amendment. Please do not abandon the women who have done so much to keep our Union safe. Please do not repay our heroes for their sacrifices by telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies they put at risk time and again to protect our country.

Please, as you sit at your fancy desks under this hallowed, historic dome, ask yourself if you are so desperate for a pat on the back from FOX News that you would be willing to vote to strip away the rights these women have spent their lives protecting. I certainly could not live with that decision--with that vote. I hope the same is true for each of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today as both chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation Safety but, more importantly, as a pilot who is only alive because of the swift actions of an experienced flight crew.

I have lived the experience of piloting a Blackhawk that was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in flight and entered into flight conditions immediately that flight simulators taught me would be catastrophic. But having the experience of flying in the toughest conditions had shown me that that was not the case.

I have probably spent more hours in the most sophisticated flight simulators than any other Senator of this body, short of, of course, Senator Kelly, our astronaut. In my over a decade of training as a military pilot, every time--every single time--that we simulated a total loss of all aircraft avionics that would follow with a total loss of hydraulic power, we died in that simulator. We did this every year, and we simulated it over and over. It was not survivable.

We never simulated an RPG explosion in the lap of one of the pilots wherein any of the crew could survive. Why did we never simulate that condition? Nobody ever imagined that it would ever happen and have the crew survive or that the aircraft would not break apart in flight.

Yet, on that day in Iraq--on that day when that rocket-propelled grenade landed in my lap and exploded--we did. The aircraft held together, and we survived it. We were 10 feet above the trees, and we looked, and we had no avionics, and we could tell that the hydraulics were next. If we had relied on that simulator training, we would have done what dark pilot humor had always said, which was: You are going to die anyway. Let's change spots and leave a mystery for the acting investigators to figure out what the heck happened.

But we didn't. We fought to fly that aircraft because our training in the cockpit, in real-world flight conditions, taught us that we could do it. Led by the expertise of my pilot in command, we landed that aircraft and saved our entire flight crew.

I would not be alive today but for the in-cockpit experience gained through many hard-earned flight hours over a decade of training. It was actual, real-world experience, not a flight simulation, that made us prepared and ready to respond to a life-threatening emergency, with level heads and swift action--with instinct.

Of course, my experience is not unique. When the hero of the Hudson, Captain ``Sully'' Sullenberger, implores Congress to understand that the combined 40,000-plus flight hours between him and his first officer were critical in saving 155 lives on that January 15, 2009, day, we should listen.

Do you think that, prior to that day, there were any flight simulations of a dual-engine failure from a bird strike, followed by ditching in the Hudson River, by any airline? by any flight school? No. In fact, when that very simulation was done after the miracle on the Hudson, even with the flight crews experiencing and expecting the scenario, they still crashed time after time in that simulated emergency. It was pilot in-cockpit flying experience that saved the miracle on the Hudson.

My experience as both a pilot, who was responsible for the lives of my crew and passengers in the most hazardous conditions, along with my commitment to my leadership role on the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, means that I cannot be complicit in efforts to compromise on safety for the flying public. There has never been a worse time to consider weakening pilot certification requirements to produce less experienced pilots.

The year 2023 has already been chilling for our civil aviation system. We have witnessed a disturbing rise of near deadly close calls that has led the FAA to convene an unprecedented safety summit, where the Acting Administrator has warned that the entire aviation industry needs to not grow complacent because complacency kills.

The NTSB has treated a recent uptick in near misses as a national crisis and has investigated these incidents to determine whether systemic problems are a root cause. Some observers believe the surge in hiring that was necessary to address the perfect storm of pre-pandemic buyouts and the post-COVID travel boom has simply resulted in a less experienced workforce that is more prone to mistakes.

We must treat these unnerving near misses as red flags and be proactive in strengthening safety requirements to make sure that these close calls do not become precursor events to a catastrophic incident.

The last thing we should be doing is weakening part 121 certification standards. We have had seven close calls most recently, and the answer is not ``let's reduce pilot training.'' It is the pilot who prevented those close calls from becoming accidents in the first place.

As a pilot, I learned the value of real-world experience. Trust me. Hours in that cockpit, in the sky, matter. Simulators are a valuable training tool. I applaud them, and I have made use of them, but they are no substitute for the real thing. Lifesaving instincts are earned through hours of hard work and dedication through the craft of piloting a real aircraft with real stakes.

Look, I know the experience of the perfect storm of major carriers buying out thousands of their most experienced pilots, followed by a post-pandemic surge in air travel demand, has created a temporary shortage of pilots and first officers, especially for regional airlines. The consequences for communities, especially with rural airports, have been real and painful. I see them myself in my own home State. I understand the temptation to cut corners or to chase the false promise of a quick fix to a systemic challenge. But weakening a pillar of our post-Colgan reforms won't magically solve the need for more pilots.

Believe me. I have asked for the specifics. If we reduce the minimum flight hours from 1,500 to 1,000, how many more pilots would be available in the following calendar year? What about 800 hours? What if we drop it to 500 or to 250? How many more pilots would you have then? Yet, today, I have received no precise estimate, let alone any credible projections.

At this point, I question whether the special interests pushing to weaken the 1,500-hour rule even have a methodology or model to measure the relationship between certain certification standards and the availability of pilots.

I am not the only one who has stress-tested industry assertions and come away with more questions than answers. Last year, the FAA rejected a

petition for an exemption to the flight hours requirement and explicitly stated:

The FAA has previously concluded the argument that an

exemption would serve to address a pilot shortage is overly

simplistic and does not present a persuasive argument.

Foreign carriers that are not subject to the 1,500-hour rule are also experiencing workforce challenges post-pandemic. Yet they are not reducing their requirements. This bolsters the FAA's conclusion.

Simply put, reducing hours, even just for restricted ATPs, represent a serious risk with no reward. It represents an unacceptable backsliding, a dangerous complacency, in an industry where complacency kills. As chair of the Aviation Safety Subcommittee, as a professional aviator, and as a private pilot, I am holding the line on safety.

I want to encourage my colleagues to focus on the long list of other, more urgent aviation issues facing our country. Now is not the time to go backward on a post-Colgan safety system, and there has not been a single aviation fatality due to pilot error since the 1,500-hour rule was put into effect.

Now is not the time to put corporate profits ahead of the lives of our constituents who may want to board a commercial flight in the future. A vote to reduce the 1,500-hour rule for pilot training will be blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs as a result of an inadequately trained flight crew.

I urge my colleagues to uphold the 1,500-hour rule.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have come to the floor today to express my support for Dilawar Syed, and his nomination to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

This Republican obstruction has gone on long enough. I ask my colleagues from across the aisle to join me in supporting this important nominee. Dilawar Syed is more than qualified to serve in this role at the Small Business Administration. He is an entrepreneur and a job creator, with decades of firsthand experience in business entrepreneurship and community engagement.

He has experience working directly with small business owners and has led efforts to drive economic growth at the local, State, and Federal levels.

Simply put, at the SBA, he would be an asset to our Nation's small businesses and would bring a critical voice to the Agency which currently lacks a fully staffed leadership team.

The SBA has not had a Senate-confirmed Deputy Administrator for more than 5 years. This is a critical mistake. This high-level absence weakens the Agency and inhibits the SBA's ability to serve the millions of small business owners looking to the Agency for resources, assistance, and capital to start and grow their businesses.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have launched unfair and baseless attacks against Mr. Syed and have held up his nomination for years. They have even repeatedly failed to show up to vote on his nomination in the Small Business Committee.

These partisan attacks are simply efforts to undermine President Biden and his administration at the SBA, as well as their ability to successfully serve our small businesses nationwide.

These Republican attacks also unfairly disparage Mr. Syed, who is not only a successful business leader and community organizer, but also, importantly, a first-generation immigrant who fully exemplifies the American dream.

With this unique and important background, Mr. Syed would bring an influential new voice and perspective to help the SBA improve its outreach to immigrant communities that have been traditionally overlooked and underserved by the Federal Government.

My friends on the other side of the aisle know the importance of filling this vacancy at the SBA. Yet they have continued to play their partisan games.

Ahead of this vote on Mr. Syed's nomination, I ask you to join me in supporting this eminently qualified nominee. Let's do our jobs and finally get this nominee confirmed.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on indian affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on rules and administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

subcommittee on europe and regional security cooperation

The Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about how we are currently failing our most senior military leaders, a failing caused entirely by my colleague the senior Senator from Alabama.

Members of our All-Volunteer Force answer the call to service by choice. No one is making them serve. They choose to serve. For their sacrifices, we owe them many things--fair pay, healthcare, veterans' benefits--to make sure they land on their feet after their service is done. And we must also make sure they can do the hard, sometimes dangerous, work they volunteered for without partisan politics getting in their way.

And yet my colleague has placed an indefinite hold on the nominations of all general officers, preventing a still growing number of our most senior leaders from taking on the challenges of their next positions and leaving critical gaps in our military leadership.

My colleague from Alabama is harming our military readiness and our servicemembers not out of concern about the promotion process or the ethical or professional qualifications of any of the nominees, he is doing it to score cheap political points, to fundraise with his base, and to try to force a policy that he personally disagrees with to change, not by legislating it like the voters of Alabama sent him here to do but holding our most senior military leaders hostage.

If my colleague had legitimate concerns about the fairness of the promotion process or felt these nominees were not qualified ethical leaders, this might be a different story.

In fact, as my colleague pointed out, I once held some, but certainly not all, nominations. But I only did it for 14 days because I was attempting to stop the administration in the White House at the time from inserting politics into a nonpartisan promotion process.

I had legitimate, well-founded concerns that an Army colonel--a single colonel's promotion would be withheld from consideration as political retaliation against him.

I held the list of promotions for just 14 days until I received assurances that he had received fair consideration, just like the rest of his peers, and then I released my hold.

Put it another way. I wanted to make sure that the military promotion process--the one we use to make sure our military is led by the best, most qualified people--was not being politicized.

My colleague is doing the exact opposite. He is trying to change DOD policy not by legislating but by holding up well-deserved promotions to the detriment of leaders who have willingly served decades in uniform, all the servicemembers who are supposed to serve under them, and our national security because he wants to insert politics into this historically nonpartisan process.

If he doesn't like the DOD policy, then he can engage in the NDAA legislative process to change it. It is coming up. The Senator will have a chance to do that.

The nominations that my colleague is holding represent experienced professionals who, if confirmed, will tackle some of the biggest challenges that our military faces.

In some cases, the positions are completely vacant, and that job just isn't being done at all. I will only talk about a few of these nominations today, but the already long list grows each month.

In a moment, I will ask the Senate to confirm MG Heidi J. Hoyle, U.S. Army, to be a lieutenant general and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, of the U.S. Army. The Army G-4 develops, implements, and oversees Army strategy, policy, plans, and programming for logistics and sustainment, some of the most challenging, if not the most challenging, issues for the Army to address.

Take it from a broken-down old soldier, logistics might not be sexy, but without them the Army doesn't run. And the logistics and sustainment needs of tomorrow's fight will be very different from those of the last wars we have fought.

We need to be working through these problems now, figuring out new strategies and plans, developing new systems that will serve our soldiers better. That is exactly what the Army G-4 does. It is not optional; it is necessary. And we need Major General Hoyle's leadership, or it is our troops, out in front, who will suffer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 48, Major General Heidi J. Hoyle, to be Lieutenant General; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senate is not able to confirm MG Heidi Hoyle today. As I said earlier, the work Major General Hoyle would do, if confirmed, is vital to the success of our Army.

And now I want to consider another patriot whose promotion is being held by my colleague from Alabama: Brig. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss, U.S. Air Force.

Brigadier General Sonkiss is the current commander of the 618th Air Operations Center, the Tanker Airlift Control Center at Scott Air Force Base in my home State of Illinois.

The 618th Air Operations Center is responsible for operational planning, as well as scheduling, directing, and assessing a fleet of about 1,100 aircraft that conduct combat delivery and strategic airlift, air refueling, global air mobility support, and aeromedical operations around the world.

General Sonkiss, a command pilot who has had a distinguished career of service to her country, is leading the 618th Air Operations Center as it does some of the most complex, most important, least celebrated work in the Air Force. And yet her promotion is being held up, not because of concerns about the fairness of the process or her own qualifications. No, her promotion has not been granted because one Senator would rather use her and other servicemembers like her to try to manipulate the DOD into doing what he wants instead of engaging in the legislative process.

I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 110, 23 nominations.

Mr. President, by refusing to confirm nominations to positions of vital importance within the DOD, the senior Senator from Alabama and some of his colleagues continue to risk our military readiness and our national security. And they continue to deny patriots, who have voluntarily served our country for decades, the promotions they have earned as a means of trying to influence policy through extortion, instead of through legislation or oversight.

I call on all my colleagues to join me in opposing the actions of the senior Senator from Alabama for the sake of our military readiness and for those who serve.