Tammy Duckworth

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. 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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, most people run from battle, but our servicemembers run toward it. They watch their brothers and sisters get wounded. They miss births and funerals, school plays and college graduations. Then they come home bearing the wounds of war--both visible and otherwise. They will always do their job defending our country no matter the sacrifice. So they deserve to know that they have the moral support and legal backing of this great Nation. But for more than 20 years, Washington has failed to give them that. One of Congress's most solemn duties is deciding when and how we send Americans into combat by debating and passing the authorization for use of military force, documents that set the legal framework for military action that are supposed to define the mission of our Americans whom we send downrange. But, lately, too many in these Halls have shrugged off that duty, hiding behind outrageously outdated AUMFs that were used to launch the Gulf and Iraq wars, all the way back in 1991 and 2002. Scared of the political risks that come with bringing these wars back into the spotlight, staring down upcoming election days, Congress has shirked its responsibility to our troops, stretching, skewing the original intent of these documents. In doing so, we have left our troops without a clearly defined mission. And now they face an increasing risk that a future Commander in Chief may improperly interpret the law to send them into armed conflicts that these AUMFs were never intended to authorize. Our troops deserve better than that. If we choose to send our finest into battle, then we here in these Halls need to debate and vote to do so based on current conditions. Enough of being more worried about the political consequences than about our troops in harm's way. And until we muster up the courage to ask and answer the tough questions that will actually tell our servicemembers what they are fighting for, we won't be living up to their sacrifices. Instead, we will be leaving them in an endless loop, refusing to even look for an off ramp. Look, I know guys and gals, buddies whom I served with in Iraq who did six, seven rotations between Iraq and Afghanistan. They went in knowing that they would probably be back in a couple of years, living the hardships of combat deployments over and over again, risking the unimaginable, sunup and sundown, year in and year out, tour after tour, all because their country said that it needed them to. They deserve more from us than to be forced to wonder whether the same outdated AUMF that has already sent them overseas half a dozen times will be misused once again to put them in harm's way without Members of Congress even having a conversation to decide whether such sacrifice is warranted. This shouldn't be hard. Anyone who claims the mantle of patriotism can't keep demanding such sacrifices from our servicemembers or refusing to step up to our obligation, our responsibility, to have a public debate and vote when we ask our troops to go into combat. Are their lives not worth a vote? not even worth a discussion? To me, part of the problem lies in the growing disconnect between those who serve overseas and those who serve on the Hill. Right now in Washington, we just don't have as many Members of Congress with combat experience the way we did in the years after Vietnam--the era when those returning from war would put down their rucks, hang up their uniforms, and head to the Capitol Building to serve their country in a different kind of way; the era when John McCain and John Kerry would reach across the aisle to solve some of our Nation's biggest problems because both of them were more concerned with doing right by the troops who protected us than brandishing partisan labels. But now, far fewer veterans come to Washington, and the divide has sharpened, with those sitting in hallowed houses of power ever more removed from those sent off to battle. Well, I can tell you this: It is a whole lot easier to cover your eyes and avoid taking tough votes if you have never shed blood in the dust and grit and horror of a war zone, if you have never held your family close before heading off on yet another tour, kissing your loved ones for what you know could be the last time. But today, there are just a handful of us in the Senate who have been in combat. The same is true for our country at large, as the same families keep volunteering to serve generation after generation. In Vietnam, because of the draft, a boy from rural Missouri could have ended up in a fighting position next to someone from the upper echelons of New York society. Of course, the rich could get out of service then too. Our former President's bone spurs proved that. But in that bygone era, service touched nearly every corner of this country, regardless of tax bracket or race or education. Now, it falls onto the shoulders of the same families to volunteer time and again or it gets foisted upon those who have fallen on hard times: service as a means of escaping poverty. So the gap widens, with the vast majority of Americans never having served and having little idea what it is like, other than what they see from Hollywood. And so the disconnect yawns, with it becoming even easier for most of us to live our lives blissfully detached from the nightmarish reality of war. We have to do more to bridge this divide. True patriotism isn't measured by how long of a standing ovation one gives our military on a single day in November each and every year. Real, lasting, meaningful patriotism requires doing the hard work necessary to actually change our country, to make it a better, fairer place, where sacrifices aren't borne by just a few but instead carried by all. Our troops are willing to sacrifice anything--everything--for their country. They fought for us time after time, tour after tour after tour. It is time that we fight for them too. It is time that we repeal these decades-old AUMFs and start honoring our heroes in the way that they deserve, showing just an ounce of the courage that they show over and over again. God bless our troops in harm's way; God bless our veterans; and always, God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a heavy yet full heart to pay tribute to someone I owe so much to, someone who millions of Americans living with disabilities owe so much to, Judy Heumann. To honor her, I want to start by describing the environment we are in for those who may be listening in who may be visually impaired. We are in the United States Senate Chambers. I am sitting in the top row of chairs. I am sitting in my wheelchair. I am an Asian-American woman with brown hair, and I am wearing my signature red lipstick, just as Judy used to wear. Judy was more than a friend; she was a personal hero to me. She was a person who devoted her life to expanding disability rights, to making sure that accessibility in this country is not an afterthought but, in fact, is the norm. She worked so hard because she recognized a simple truth: that everyone, whether they know it or not, is just 1 day, 1 split-second away from acquiring a disability and needing the protections and rights that too many take for granted, rights that every American deserves. You know, when I earned my disability in 2004, I actually considered myself pretty lucky. I say ``lucky'' because when I got home from Iraq, the Rehabilitation Act had been the law of the land for more than 30 years, and the Americans with Disabilities Act had been in place for more than a decade, both of which Judy had fought tirelessly to implement and, in fact, was the author of, and both of which empowered people like me to lead full lives. So, yes, pretty darn lucky because I wouldn't be able to roll my wheelchair through the maze of the Capitol Building and onto the Senate floor today to give this speech without those laws or without the unwavering advocacy and leadership of Judy Heumann. You see, Judy passed her exams to earn a teaching license before people with disabilities had equal protections under the law, but she was denied that license by the school board even though she passed the exams--denied it just because of so-called concerns about legal liability in the workplace because she had a disability. They said that because Judy used a wheelchair, she represented a fire hazard and couldn't safely teach in a classroom. Judy, rightfully so, wasn't going to take that for an answer, so she got to work. She worked and she worked and she worked. She fought and she fought some more. She made a fuss. She caused what civil rights giant John Lewis called ``good trouble.'' It is in large part because of her never giving up that the Rehabilitation Act exists, that the ADA exists, and that my full, wonderful, beautifully chaotic life is possible. For that and for so much more, I will be forever grateful for Judy Heumann. Judy passed away earlier this month, but what she lived for will live on forever. I will never forget the hard-earned lessons she taught me about what it means to truly fight for our civil rights, to keep up that work day after day after day, and to make sure we empower those who come next to continue reaching toward a more just and more accessible future. In her name, I will forever keep striving to bring about that better tomorrow when people with disabilities won't have to work so hard just to live our daily lives. Rest in power, Judy. We miss you already. 190th Anniversary of the U.S. Partnership with Thailand Mr. President, ``sawadee ka.'' I come to the floor today to commemorate a special moment, the 190th anniversary of the U.S. partnership with the Kingdom of Thailand. I am an American, but my Thai heritage makes me a living example of the unshakeable bond between our two nations. Our nations have a long, long history of friendship. For centuries, our countries have learned from and leaned on each other militarily, diplomatically, economically, culturally--you name it. From the environment to our economies, national security to cyber security, we have helped one another grow and evolve, adapting to a world that is evermore connected, adapting to an era in which technology allows allies half a world away to be there for each other in half an instant. There is a reason Thailand is often called Washington's oldest ally in Asia. Ever since an American ship landed on Thailand's shores more than 200 years ago, ever since President Andrew Jackson and Thai King Rama III signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation formalizing peaceful relations between our countries, ever since King Mongkut offered to send elephants to President Abraham Lincoln an ocean away, our nations have proven that there is no greater asset than a partner you can count on in times of both peace and conflict. Time after time, we have worked side by side to catch the bad actors running international criminal networks, to give humanitarian relief to those who need it, to keep the peace far beyond our own borders. We have seen our shared interests and values manifest time after time over the past 190 years. To name just a few examples, more than 300,000 people of Thai descent--myself included--live in the United States today, and thousands more come to study every semester. The jointly run Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences has been at the forefront of research on infectious diseases since the 1960s, developing treatment for a host of diseases that have saved millions of lives in both our countries and around the world. Under a 2002 framework, hundreds of U.S. companies have invested in Thailand, fueling bilateral trade of over $74 billion in 2020 alone. And, during World War II, the United States worked with Thai students in the United States and dissidents inside Thailand to create the Free Thai Movement. Then, our security alliance was eventually formalized under the Manila Pact of 1954 and the Thanat-Rusk communique in 1962. And, now, the Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group in Thailand helps organize more than 400 joint exercises per year, including Cobra Gold, the largest multilateral exercise in the Indo-Pacific region. In 2023, with more and more geopolitical threats rising by the day, the strength of our bond is as important as ever. Our alliance provides some sense of stability amidst that chaos and some sense of security amidst the unpredictability. It helps to make a tenuous situation a little bit more tenable. In just a few months, Thailand will hold national elections for the second time since the military coup of 2014. As in other countries, Thailand's path to democracy has had its challenges. There have been setbacks as well as advances. But in this moment, I know I speak for my colleagues in this Chamber when I say we look forward to an election that is free and fair, an election that cements Thailand on the road to a stable democratic system based on the rule of law, civilian authority, and respect for internationally recognized human rights. Let me just close by saying: For the progress that Thailand has made toward that more democratic future, for the friendship our two nations have shared, as well as for all the years that I was lucky enough to call Thailand my home as a child, I am endlessly grateful, and I am forever proud to call myself an American of Thai descent. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I have nine 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:

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I come to the floor today to honor my friend CWO5 Joseph Lemens II, who we lost suddenly in November. Joe worked as hard as he laughed. He was full of energy and empty of ego. In many ways, he was the epitome of what a ``Soldier,'' with a capital ``S,'' should be. He was dedicated to service--service to his most beloved and to those with whom he was barely acquainted, service to his dearest neighbors in Illinois and to total strangers throughout his four deployments to the Middle East. Joe first enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves when he was just 17 years old and then served continually for the next 42 years until his retirement last March. His work ethic was tireless, and sacrifices he made for his Nation were immeasurable. He was selfless and giving. He would be the first one to offer to lend a hand, and then would refuse to accept payment for his good deed. He seemed quiet until you got to know him. Then his laugh made you laugh so hard that, eventually, you forgot why you were both laughing at all. As a fellow pilot, I especially appreciated the way he gravitated toward machines, the way he loved having the power of an engine, whether it be a snowmobile or a Black Hawk helicopter, at his fingertips. As his commanding officer for my years as a Mad Dog, I couldn't have asked for a better maintenance test pilot, although I always questioned the sanity of anyone who would fly broken helicopters on purpose. I considered myself lucky that Joe was a member of our battalion when we were in Iraq. Maintenance officers, you see, and especially those like Joe, are a rare commodity, and Joe was one of the best. When we got back to U.S. soil, after I was wounded and could no longer get from point A to point B like I used to, I was even luckier to have Joe show up at my house one day with his toolbox in tow, ready to remodel my home to make it completely wheelchair accessible. He combined the grit of a midwesterner with the grace of faith. He combined the resilience of a soldier with the brilliance of an engineer. I know he will be dearly missed. He already is. My thoughts are with his wife Kathryn and his children and his newborn grandson Joe Lemens IV, whom he was able to see. I thank them for sharing Joe with us for all those years and for their own service to our great Nation. We will all miss Joe, but we will forever catch an echo of his larger-than-life laugh whenever we hear his favorite sound: the smooth rumble of a well-cared-for engine. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5:30 vote commence immediately.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, my daughter Abigail, my oldest daughter, just turned 8. She is silly and smart and gives the best hugs you could ever imagine. She has big dreams, and if you have ever met her, you just know that she will reach them. She has decided that one day she is going to become an engineer or an Army nurse. She wants to build things, and she wants to help people. That is it. My younger daughter, Maile Pearl, is 4\1/2\, with just about the most contagious laugh I have ever heard. My girls are my everything, and for them, I would do anything, but Abigail and Maile might never have been born if it were not for the basic reproductive rights Americans have been depending on for nearly half a century. I might never have had my beautiful, incredible, drive- me-crazy, yet-I-love-them-infinitely girls if Roe v. Wade had not paved the way for women to make their own healthcare decisions, as I was only able to get pregnant through IVF, in vitro fertilization. Because of IVF, I get to experience all the joys and chaos of motherhood. Because of IVF, my husband and I aren't just ``Tammy and Bryan''; we are ``Mommy and Daddy.'' Because of IVF, we are a family, and my heart is whole. Tragically, that future--that family, that fervently hoped-for dream--is now in danger for millions of would-be parents across the country, as the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe has Republicans plotting to push forward new policy that would go even further toward controlling women's bodies, including plans that could effectively ban fertility treatments like IVF. We know that because they told us, because they said the quiet part out loud. One anti-choice group even admitted to GOP legislators that they would consider figuring out how to go after IVF treatments ``next year, 2 years from now, 3 years from now.'' If you are thinking that this makes no sense, you are right. You are not misunderstanding anything. You are not missing something. It is the ultimate nightmarish blend of hypocrisy and misogyny that you think it is. The very people who claim to be defending family values are actively shouldering policies that would prevent millions of Americans from starting families. In the most extreme version, they are pushing the kind of so-called personhood bills that paint women undergoing IVF as criminals and our doctors as killers, even as we are trying everything we can to create life. The thing is, they craft this kind of policy carefully, tactically. They are strategic about every word they use, about every comma they place, winking to their political base all the while. Their so-called personhood bills don't necessarily say: Guess what, big news. We are going to ban IVF, full stop. What they say is: Hey, we're not completely, totally, fully opposed to IVF, per se. But we definitely won't let you implant multiple fertilized eggs at once. They say: You can have this expensive, intensive procedure still, but you can only implant one embryo at a time--a cruelly clever way of effectively preventing people from trying IVF without actually spelling it out verbatim. The process relies on implanting multiple embryos at once to give women the best shot of becoming pregnant and carrying a child to term. So implanting only one per round would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention emotionally devastating for so many. Personhood: This policy could also ban dilation and curettage, or D&C, after an incredibly short time, sometimes at just 6 weeks. D&C is the medical procedure necessary to safely remove an unviable embryo and lining of the uterus so women can eventually try again to get pregnant. So what happens if a woman miscarries after that 6-week mark? What happens to women like me who miscarried at 9 weeks? If that kind of policy had been in place in that horrible, most searingly painful moment in my life when I learned that my pregnancy wasn't viable, I would have been kept from the medical care I desperately needed--care that allowed me to undergo another round of IVF after that D&C procedure was completed, care that allowed me eventually to get pregnant with my rainbow daughter, Maile. Over the past 6 years that I have served in the Senate, I have gotten to know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle quite well. Today, I come to the floor to ask those Republican colleagues a simple question: Think back to that stretch of time before you became a parent. Imagine that the only way you or your partner could get pregnant was through IVF. Then imagine that some politicians deciding that appealing to the most fringe subset of their base was worth robbing you of your dream of having a child, was worth stealing that moment we all had when we locked eyes with our newborns for the first time. How would that feel? How would that sit with you? If it so happens that you didn't struggle with infertility, that you didn't need a little medical help to have your child, then I am happy for you, truly. I can't tell you how fortunate you are. But if through sheer luck you won that proverbial lottery, how could you then stomach spending your time robbing other Americans, your own constituents, of the joy you have been lucky enough to experience? No. No. No. No. In this scary, precarious post-Dobbs world, we cannot risk one more State getting one inch closer to stripping one more person of the right to build their family, how they choose, when they choose. That is why today, I ask my colleagues to pass with unanimous consent my Right to Build Families Act, which would ensure that every American's fundamental right to become a parent via IVF is actually, truly protected, regardless of a person's ZIP Code. My bill would keep States from banning assisted reproductive technology--known as ART--including IVF. It would protect healthcare providers who provide ART or related counseling and would allow the Department of Justice to pursue civil action against States that violate this legislation because no one should feel that someone else's religious beliefs or partisan slants could rob her of her chance to get pregnant, and no doctor should have to risk becoming a criminal in their State's eyes just for providing women the healthcare they need to start families. Let's be very clear. If you believe in basic logic, then you know that there is no chance that these kinds of extremist Republicans have any right to call themselves pro-life. If they were pro-life, they would do something about the number of first graders murdered in their classrooms by military-style assault weapons every year. If they were pro-life, they would spend even an ounce of energy trying to staunch the maternal mortality crisis that has killed a tragic number of Black and Brown women. If they cared about protecting life on this planet, they would do something about our planet dying. They would stop stripping basic healthcare from single parents working double shifts. They would stop trying to rip Social Security away from grandma and grandpa. If they cared about fostering life maybe--I don't know, maybe, just maybe--they wouldn't try to stop women like me from creating it. They wouldn't throw around words like manslaughter, when all we want is to become mothers. Look, there are lots of really complicated, nuanced issues that we debate in this Chamber. This just isn't one of them. One in four women married to men have difficulty getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term, a stat that doesn't include the LGBTQ+ couples or partnerless Americans who also need the help of ART to grow families. One in four--that is one in four blue States, one in four red States, battleground States, one in four of the biggest cities and the smallest of rural towns, one in four of the wealthiest and the poorest ZIP Codes. Infertility doesn't discriminate. It doesn't distinguish. It doesn't see party lines or State lines. So to my Republican colleagues, please: Think about how many women that 25 percent equates to be in your State, women willing to go through expensive, painful medical procedures just for a chance to experience the smallest, most banal moments of parenthood, just to have a newborn to swaddle, a toddler whose shoes to tie, a baby whose diaper to change. Think about these constituents of yours. If you believe that they have the right to be called ``Mom'' without also being painted as a criminal, then all you have to do to prove it is to help me defend this most basic right. It is that simple. It is that easy. I yield the floor.