Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Israel and the world are still reeling from the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7 that left somewhere around 1,400 Israelis and at least 31 Americans dead. In scale and scope, the attack carried echoes of our 9/11. And as on 9/11, life changed in an instant.

I came down to the floor yesterday to talk about these attacks and the United States' commitment to standing with the Israeli people against terrorism. And today, I would like to talk about another important point these attacks raise: the importance of our national defense and military readiness.

It has been said that ``Only the dead have seen the end of war.'' We live in a fallen world. And as long as we live in a fallen world, there will be evil men bent on aggression. And if we wish to continue living in peace and freedom, we must be always ready to defend against such men. Military preparedness is an essential and constant need. There is never a time where we can guarantee our peace and safety, and so there is never a time when we can afford to be ill-prepared to defend our peace and safety.

As citizens of the United States--an immense country with a reputation for military strength--it can be easy to become complacent and to assume that we will always be able to deter or defeat attacks, but that is a dangerous assumption. As strong as we are, we are not invulnerable, and we are not the only great power out there. And if we don't make the necessary investments in our military to back up our reputation of strength, we may find our ability to deter hostile countries quickly waning.

And the fact of the matter is, our military preparedness is not where it should be. Thanks to budgetary impasses and increased operational demands, by 2018, our readiness had eroded to the point that the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China.

And while we have made progress since then, we are still a long way from where we need to be. We have military services that are struggling to meet recruiting targets. There is a persistent pilot shortage, and in a number of cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. And we are not doing an adequate job of maintaining the kind of supply we need of munitions.

That is not an acceptable situation for us to be in, and it could have very serious consequences. To give you just one example, recent U.S. war games envisioning a United States-China conflict following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous military and economic costs on both sides. One story on these war games noted: And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear--the U.S. does better in some than others--the cost is clear. In every exercise, the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground.

Let me just repeat that last line:

In every exercise, the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-

to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion

of its planes destroyed on the ground.

That is not a promising scenario, and it highlights our serious readiness shortages, shortages that other countries may not share. China, which is investing heavily in its military, is outpacing our military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has amassed a larger navy. And while Russia is currently expending its military resources in its war of aggression against Ukraine, it too does not hesitate when it comes to military investment.

We have serious work to do on the readiness front. And as I said, we have made progress since 2018. But we still have a long way to go to ensure that our military is fully prepared to meet and deter 21st century threats, and this is a priority we need to address now, not when we are waking up one morning reeling from an attack on our country or on Americans abroad, but right now.

Investing in our military after we are threatened or attacked is too late. We can't scale up defense capabilities in an instant or suddenly produce an adequate supply of munitions out of thin air. We need to get and keep--and keep--our military where it needs to be on the readiness front so that we can deter threats and meet them, if needed, with overwhelming force.

And boosting our strength is important for our friends and allies as well. We can't and shouldn't send troops into every conflict, and we can't solve all the world's problems. But sooner or later, world events do affect us, and we can't retreat from the world stage and allow maligned powers to fill the resulting vacuum, nor can we afford to concentrate on one threat or area of the world to the exclusion of others. Putin's war in Ukraine and Hamas's attack on Israel should be ample reminders that threats can come from both great powers and non- state actors alike.

So we need to get to work, and that should start with passing a final version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act and making progress on our annual appropriations bills, including the defense appropriations bill. And we should also take up a supplemental to provide the necessary support to our allies and to ensure that we provide any additional funding needed for our own military.

October 7 was the latest reminder that we live in a fallen and dangerous world. Let us ensure that we always are prepared to preserve the peace and to defend our Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. President, there are days and events that are almost unspeakable, and October 7, 2023, is one of them. The slaughter of hundreds of innocent Israelis--men, women, and, unthinkably, children-- at the hands of Hamas terrorists was a terrible witness to the evil of which mankind is capable. The stories and images that have emerged are searing: a bloodied infant seat, parents tucking their 10-month-old twins into hiding before being murdered by the attackers, a mom and dad killed with their three young children.

As a father and a grandfather, I cannot imagine the terror those parents must have felt as they realized Hamas gunmen had moved into their villages. It is a terrible fact of war that the innocent are often drawn into the crossfire, but to make war on the innocent, to target the innocent deliberately, is perhaps the greatest evil of which man is capable.

Mr. President, it is nearly unimaginable to think that someone could look at Hamas's attack and find any cause for joy or celebration, and yet in the days following the attacks, we have seen far too many people right here at home--including at our so-called top universities-- attempt to defend or even celebrate the indefensible. And while the First Amendment protects their right to speak, I hope that we as a society can categorically reject the view that anything can justify or excuse the deliberate murder of babies and children.

Mr. President, Israel is currently working to bring a swift end to Hamas's reign of terror, and it should have the full support of the United States in this mission. The United States has long provided security assistance to Israel, including an ongoing memorandum of understanding that supports foreign military financing and missile defense assistance through fiscal year 2028.

In 2021, we passed supplemental funding to restock the Iron Dome system in response to rocket attacks from Hamas, and I anticipate Congress will soon consider a supplemental in response to this attack. We must also use every resource available to prevent escalation and expansion of this war and ensure that Israel does not end up fighting on multiple fronts.

We can already see that other hostile actors are angling to enter the fray. Iran is actively threatening Israel. Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has fired rockets and artillery across Israel's northern border with Lebanon. And we need to band together with our allies to make it clear that any attempts to escalate this war would be a grave miscalculation.

It is also past time to hold Iran--a long-time funder of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations--to account for its role in fomenting unrest and destabilizing the Middle East. I have not been shy about calling out the Biden administration's poor track record on being tough on Iran, in particular, the administration's misguided goal of re-signing a flawed nuclear deal and attempting to appease the country's leaders with billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Just over a month ago--on September 11 of all days--the administration lifted a freeze on $6 billion in Iranian assets, which would likely have resulted in the freeing up of additional funds for Iran's hostile activities. I am glad that the President listened to calls from Senator Blackburn, me, and others to block Iran's access to these funds, and I hope that the Senate can soon pass legislation to permanently freeze these assets. We need to make it very clear to Iran--and to any other country that would seek to imitate the Iranians--that there will be consequences for aiding and abetting terror.

Mr. President, 30 Americans have now been confirmed to have died in

Israel. As I speak, we have 13 possible American hostages being held by Hamas. We also have an estimated up to 600 Americans in Gaza in harm's way, including a family that my office is working with. We must get them out.

Mr. President, in the midst of war and Hamas's brutality, it is important to remember our own sense of humanity and innocence on both sides. Hamas's utter indifference to human life was on full display on its rampage through Israeli villages, and that indifference extends, unfortunately, to the lives of its own people. Hamas has tangled its terrorist infrastructure throughout and under an incredibly dense urban population center, ensuring that innocent lives will always be in harm's way in attacks on legitimate terrorist targets.

And as Israel prepares to go after targets in Gaza, Hamas is now discouraging--and, it appears, actively trying to prevent--civilians from heeding Israel's calls to evacuate. Apparently, Hamas believes that dead Palestinians will advance its cause and keep the focus on Israel's response, not the abject brutality that Hamas unleashed on October 7. And we must be resolute in exposing and condemning this callousness.

We must also work to ensure that the response of free countries conveys the respect for human life that is so woefully lacking in the terrorists and that we do everything we can to ensure that innocent civilians on both sides in this conflict are protected as much as possible and that humanitarian aid reaches innocent Palestinians and is not intercepted by Hamas terrorists.

Mr. President, the Jewish people have suffered much, but their story--and the story of Israel--is one of resilience, and the United States stands with Israel at this most challenging time. My prayers this week are with the grieving families in Israel and all the suffering and for the permanent defeat of Hamas and a just and lasting peace.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. President, the specter of heavyhanded government regulation of the internet reared its ugly head once again last week with the Federal Communications Commission's announcement that it will consider a so-called net neutrality proposal at its October meeting coming up later this month.

So what is net neutrality? Well, at its most basic level, it is simply the idea that internet service providers shouldn't prioritize or block certain internet traffic at the expense of others. Understood in that way, it is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. But that is not what we are talking about with the Biden FCC's net neutrality proposal. Like the Obama FCC before it, the Biden FCC wants to assert broad new government powers over the internet using rules-- get this--that were designed for telephone companies and monopolies back during the Great Depression.

This is a quote from FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel last week:

Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet

is fast, open and fair.

Proving once again that Democrats' faith in Washington experts is undying and that nothing scares a Democrat more than the thought of some aspect of society not being regulated by the Federal Government.

This is not the first time Democrats have sounded the alarm about the perils that await us if we don't let the Government regulate the internet with a heavy hand. In fact, back in 2015, the Obama FCC actually implemented the regulatory regime the Biden FCC is now considering imposing again. This opened the door to a whole new host of new internet regulations including--including--price regulations.

Unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans generally who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like my State of South Dakota.

Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations act as a further disincentive to expanding business. No big surprise there.

Fast forward to 2017, and the FCC under Chairman Pai voted to repeal--repeal--the heavyhanded internet regulations passed by the Obama FCC. The prospect of this repeal was greeted with near hysteria from Democrats. We were told that internet traffic would slow to a crawl, that innovation would be stifled, that our freedom of speech was threatened, and more. And in the wake of the repeal, none of the things that Democrats predicted came to pass. The internet as we know it not only survived, it thrived. Innovation flourished, the internet remained a vehicle for free and open discourse. And internet speeds not only didn't slow down, they got faster and faster.

During the pandemic, despite the explosive growth of internet usage, American networks had no problem keeping up with demand, delivering the reliable service that Americans have come to expect. Now contrast that with Europe--where internet regulation is much more heavyhanded--where they struggle to deal with increased internet usage. In fact, European service providers slowed internet speeds to maintain connectivity throughout the course of the pandemic. The United States is now a leader in adopting next-generation telecommunications services like 5G and advanced Wi-Fi, while Europe struggles to keep pace. But that may not last if the Biden FCC goes ahead with its net neutrality plans.

As I said, the last time a Democrat-led FCC put heavyhanded internet regulations in place, broadband investment declined. There is a good reason to believe that the same thing would happen this time. There is also substantial reason to be concerned that the Biden FCC's proposed regulatory regime would result in higher internet bills for Americans.

As FCC Commissioner Carr, a Republican appointee who opposes the Democrats' proposal, recently pointed out:

Since 2017, the prices Americans pay for Internet services

have decreased on an inflation-adjusted basis. Meanwhile, the

prices for utility-regulated services like electricity,

water, and gas have increased over two times faster than the

prices for Internet services. Monopoly regulations invariably

lead to monopoly prices. In addition, Title II regulation

opens the door to regulators adding new taxes and fees to

consumers' monthly broadband bills.

That is from Brendan Carr's statement.

In addition to higher prices for consumers and decreased broadband investment, another consequence of the Biden's FCC's proposed new regulatory regime would be government interference in internet traffic. Ironically, given Democrats' professed concerns, it is precisely the net neutrality regime they are calling for that could imperil the free and open internet they claim to want.

Under the regulatory regime the Biden FCC wants to impose, the Federal Government would be allowed to block or prioritize internet traffic or otherwise interfere with the free flow of information. Think about that one.

Given, I would add, the Biden administration's demonstrated willingness to use its regulatory power to advance its social and environmental agenda, it is not hard to imagine the Biden administration using this proposed new regulatory power to shape Americans' internet experience for its own ends.

The Biden FCC should be focused on addressing real challenges such as continuing our efforts to close the digital divide and ensuring that every American has access to high-speed broadband; it should not be wasting time and money advancing a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Thanks, in substantial part, to the light-touch regulatory regime currently in place, the internet in the United States is thriving and bringing new benefits to American families and businesses. And if Democrats really want a free and open internet and to keep the United States at the forefront of broadband development, they will oppose the Biden FCC's heavyhanded power grab.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``nay.''

[Rollcall Vote No. 249 Ex.]

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).