Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of free speech and in support of AM radio. AM radio is something that is widely enjoyed by Americans across this country. Over 80 million Americans listen to AM radio every month. They rely on it. Yet, earlier this year, we saw eight major automakers announce that they are stripping AM radio from new cars and new trucks, taking away the option of AM radio for consumers.

That decision, I believe, was a serious mistake--a mistake that would hurt Texans and that would hurt Americans in all 50 States. As a result, I join with my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, in introducing legislation--the AM Radio for Every Car Act.

I would note that Senator Markey is one of if not the most liberal Senator in this Chamber, and I am one of if not the most conservative Senator in this Chamber. I do not recall another bill on which Senator Markey and I have joined forces, and it speaks to the power of this issue that you see such deep agreement across ideological lines.

When Senator Markey and I introduced that legislation, within days, one of the eight major carmakers--Ford Motor Company--reversed course and announced they would now include AM radio on new cars and trucks. I think they viewed this coalition as a sign of the apocalypse. I would note that this bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. It has 44 cosponsors, 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans.

When we took it up in the Commerce Committee, it passed out of the Commerce Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, and why is that? Because on the merits, this bill is the right thing to do for the American people.

No. 1, in times of disaster, AM radio is the single most reliable medium for communicating about a natural disaster. I remember when Hurricane Harvey hit my home city of Houston and the entire Texas gulf coast, the enormous challenges, people relied on AM radio.

When other forms of communication go down, AM radio is consistently the most resilient to help people get out of harm's way, whether it is getting out of the way of a hurricane or getting out of the way of a tornado or getting out of the way of a forest fire or any other disaster, AM radio is there to help people know where to go and how to keep their families alive.

But, secondly, AM radio is particularly important for rural America. Texas has enormous quantities of our State that is rural. And in rural America, there are many parts of Texas, many parts of other States, where farmers and ranchers--the only thing they can get is AM radio. And when they are out on their farms and ranches, they rely on AM radio for weather reports, for crop reports, for news, for sports, for entertainment. Taking away the option for rural America of AM radio is bad--bad--for farmers and ranchers in America.

But, No. 3, diversity. AM radio promotes a diversity of views. Why? Because the barriers of entry to getting into AM radio are relatively low. To start an FM station is quite expensive. An AM station is much cheaper to start and to operate, and, as a consequence, we see a beautiful array of diversity of views reflected on AM radio nationally. There are 296 AM stations that are owned by Hispanics.

Nationally, there are 138 AM stations that are owned by African Americans. Nationally, there are 104 AM stations that are owned by Asian Americans. Nationally, there are 14 AM stations that are owned by American Indians or Alaskan Natives. Nationally, there are four AM radio stations owned by Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. And nationally, there are 385 AM radio stations that are owned by women.

If we wanted diversity of views, AM radio is critically important, and I would note, the support for this bill is broad and far-ranging. Seven former FEMA Directors have called for the Senate and the House to pass this bill as soon as possible, saying that ``the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is critical to ensuring Federal, State, and local officials can keep the public safe.''

That sentiment was echoed by multiple emergency response organizations, such as the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Big City Emergency Managers, and the National Association of Counties.

All 50 State broadcaster associations have called on Congress to pass this bill. In addition to media groups, including the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, the National Urban League, and OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates.

The bill has received the support of many agricultural and livestock groups. And the AARP has likewise shared their support for this bill, noting that ``adults age 50 and above represent the largest share of AM radio listeners, but they also represent those most at risk from disaster events.''

This is a bipartisan bill that makes sense, that preserves consumer choice.

This bill should pass easily, and yet it is not going to pass this afternoon.

My friend the Senator from Kentucky, it is my understanding, intends to object. And I would note that one aspect of AM radio is particularly important to Texans and to the citizens of Kentucky and to people all across this country, which is that AM radio is a haven for free speech. AM radio is a haven for people to speak, even if their views are disfavored by the political ruling class.

Talk radio is an oasis for conservative speech. Rush Limbaugh would not exist without AM radio. The views of my friend the Senator from Kentucky would be heard by many fewer people without AM radio, whether Mark Levin or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. Allowing free speech is important. I believe these automakers stood up to remove AM radio as part of a broader pattern we see of censoring views that are disfavored by Big Business. I think this is consistent with what Big Tech has done--silencing views they disagree with.

And so this bill is all about preserving consumer choice, letting consumers decide. If you don't want to listen to AM radio, turn it off. But you know what, if the automakers all come together and say: You can't turn it on because we are not going to put it in your car; we are not going to put it in your truck; you don't have the right to choose what you will listen to, I think that is profoundly harmful for our country, profoundly harmful for free speech. And so I hope this body can actually act in support of Americans in harm's way in a disaster, in support of farmers and ranchers who rely on AM radio, in support of a diversity of views speaking online, and in support of free speech for whatever your views, whether they are rightwing, leftwing, or no wings at all. AM radio lets people speak and make the case in John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas.

Accordingly--actually, before I do this, I would like to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts--oh, OK.

Accordingly, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 208, S. 1669; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want to briefly respond to the arguments raised by the Senator from Kentucky and then yield the floor to Senator Lujan from New Mexico.

Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky suggested that free speech has nothing to do with the actions of private companies censoring citizens, and I am going to suggest that is a very cribbed version of free speech.

The Senator from Kentucky argued: All we should care about is government restrictions of speech.

But, apparently, that means there is no role to do anything to protect free speech rights from Big Tech companies that censor and silence and deplatform voices they disagree with, that abuse their monopoly power to silence voices.

I will tell you, I have been proud to earn support from libertarians across Texas and across the country, and it is a strange libertarian view that supports Big Tech censorship of free

speech. Being a libertarian does not mean being an anarchist, and I would suggest there is a role for government rules and regulations that are liberty enhancing and choice enhancing, and that is what this choice is.

The Senator from Kentucky said: Well, consumers could just choose to turn on the AM radio.

Well, no, they can't, if you have eight automakers working in concert to take that choice away from them. This is all about giving them that choice.

Secondly, I would say, the Senator from Kentucky suggested consumers would pay more.

Mr. President, the status quo is AM radio is in the cars and trucks right now, and it is not just electric vehicles the carmakers are pulling it from. It is every vehicle including internal combustion vehicles. This is about stripping consumer choice and killing AM radio.

I hope the majority leader will schedule this bill for a vote because, if he did, it would pass with an overwhelming vote on the floor of the Senate. And I hope the Senator from Kentucky will reconsider because this bill would have passed today, were it not for two words from the Senator of Kentucky: ``I object.'' That is the only reason this bill has not passed today.

I yield to Senator Lujan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated.

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

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

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

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1249 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, this is an amendment that should be a simple and bipartisan, commonsense amendment.

Under a treaty in 1944, Mexico is obliged to provide 350,000 acre- feet of water per year to the Rio Grande Valley. Farmers in the Rio Grande Valley are facing drought right now, and Mexico has been slow in meeting its treaty commitments. This amendment simply instructs the water negotiators to press Mexico to meet its treaty agreements and provide the water that is owed.

I would note that the language of this amendment was worked out in a bipartisan manner and was cleared by both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This language was also worked out directly with the negotiators of the International Boundary and Water Commission. It is designed not to negatively impact any other State but to instruct States to urge Mexico to meet its treaty commitments so that farmers who need water can get the water they need.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1296 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the need to protect the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on Presidential nominations.

With his appointment of multiple acting officials to perform senior roles that would, otherwise, require confirmation by this body, President Biden is deliberately circumventing the Senate and the nomination process. In some instances, these are vacancies of President Biden's own making. He has routinely nominated individuals with no relevant experience to key safety positions. When threatened with the rejection of these unqualified nominees, President Biden simply withdraws their names from consideration and, instead, installs them in Senate-confirmed positions in an acting capacity. Julie Su's tenure as the head of the Department of Labor is a notable example. The recently reported elevation of Laura Daniel-Davis to Acting Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior is another.

But I speak today about yet another case of this gamesmanship at a key safety Agency where a rejected nominee has been given the reins-- the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA. Earlier this year, President Biden nominated Ann Carlson to be the administrator of NHTSA. She is an environmental law professor who has written for decades about how unelected bureaucrats should make major changes to American society in the name of combating global warming. But NHTSA is a safety Agency whose mission it is to make American roads safer. It is not the EPA, and Ms. Carlson has zero road-safety experience.

It was immediately obvious to many, including myself, that she was not qualified for this position. And in the face of opposition from every Republican on the Commerce Committee and dozens of stakeholders because of her lack of experience, the President withdrew Ms. Carlson's nomination just 2 months after he submitted it.

President Biden could have followed his withdrawal of Ms. Carlson's nomination with the appointment of a qualified individual to lead NHTSA. He did just that with the FAA only last month, and that nominee was confirmed. But, instead, President Biden turned around and appointed Ms. Carlson to the same position in an acting capacity in July.

Promptly thereafter, she led the charge to effectively mandate expensive electric vehicles by proposing standards that stretched the Agency's authority far beyond what the law allows. And, as my committee has uncovered, Ms. Carlson has been involved in helping a for-profit law firm file dozens of nuisance suits across the country to try to bankrupt American energy companies. Then, when it was pointed out how she used her position and law students to help, she tried to cover it up.

The stakes here are significant. Big government mandates for EVs threaten to make our Nation less secure, as we rely on supplies controlled by China;

less productive, as autoworkers fear for their jobs; less competitive, as automakers seek to stay afloat after unprofitable investments--Ford is losing a whopping $36,000 on every single EV sold--and less prosperous, as families pay more for cars they don't actually want or, even worse, see their tax dollars spent on yet more bailouts.

Congress must have a role in these kinds of far-reaching policies and the officials who implement them. The appointments clause of the Constitution is a critical check on Executive power. The Senate must protect its prerogative to review the President's nominees to powerful, unelected positions in the Federal Government.

Some important protections already exist in law. The ``Vacancies Act'' sets rules for how a President may temporarily fill posts with acting officials. One of the restrictions it imposes is that a person may not serve as an acting official once the President submits his or her nomination to the Senate for the same position. This rule protects the Senate's constitutional role. It applies to Ms. Carlson's withdrawn nomination, and the limited exceptions to the rule do not allow her to serve as the acting head of NHTSA.

This bill would enforce our advice-and-consent authority.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Marshall's resolution of disapproval of this outrageous rule.

I have to say, as I sat here on the Senate floor, I listened to my friend from Hawaii give his floor remarks. As I listened to what he said, I wrote down some of what he said. He said ``Kids need to eat.'' He said ``Don't take the food away from children.'' And he said ``Don't drag children into the culture wars.''

I have to admit, Mr. President, I felt like I was in ``Alice in Wonderland'' and that I had gone through the looking glass because I agree emphatically with all three of those statements; and, for a moment there, I thought the Senator from Hawaii had given a speech in support of this resolution of disapproval.

What is this issue about? Understand what it is about. It is Joe Biden and the Democrats who are taking food away from children. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has told schools: We will cut off your school lunch funding. We will take the food off of your plates and out of your mouths unless the schools comply with the Biden administration's radical transgender policies.

It is Joe Biden and the Democrats and every Democrat who votes in favor of this policy who are saying: We are going to take food away from kids. Why? Because to today's Democratic Party, feeding children-- and, mind you, we are talking about low-income kids, many of whom the only food they get that day, they get at school--and the Democrats are going to say: We are taking away your food. Why? Because today's Democrat Party is committed to the proposition that a boy who identifies as a girl should be allowed to use the girls' restrooms; should be allowed to shower with teenage girls, even if the girls don't want it; that 10-, 12-, 14-, 15-year-old girls should be forced to shower naked next to someone who is biologically male. This is not hypothetical. Members of the Judiciary Committee listened to the testimony of Riley Gaines, a national champion swimmer who was forced, under these same idiotic policies, to shower in a shower next to someone biologically male with full male equipment. She wasn't asked for her consent. I ask the women in this Chamber: How many of you would be excited to be forced to shower with someone biologically of the opposite sex?

Today's Democratic Party has embraced the radical and extremes. When it comes to sports, their view also is that boys should be able to compete against girls in sports and men should be able to compete against women in sports. And this is happening all over the country.

I believe in women's sports. I believe in girls' sports. I have two young daughters. Sports are amazing for girls to learn discipline, hard work, and teamwork. Title IX has opened doors for young women to go to college. And yet the Democrats' extreme transgender ideology is destroying girls' sports and women's sports.

This is not a matter of gender or gender identity; this is a matter of fairness. Anyone who is not consumed by ideology understands there is a difference between boys and girls. There are biological differences between boys and girls. There is a reason why, recently, in Canadian power lifting, a biological male won the women's power lifting, beating the second-place competitor by, if I remember correctly, 463 pounds. It is not fair to force little girls to compete against biological boys.

The Democrats don't care about fairness. They care about extreme ideology. And every Democrat who votes against this CRA is voting to take the food from hungry kids because that is how radical they are in enforcing this policy.

I urge every Senator to vote aye.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached legal opinion of the Government Accountability Office, no. B-335488, titled ``U.S. Department of Transportation--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transportation's FY 2023-2024 Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity,'' issued on October 18, 2023, be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as Israel is at war. They are at war in response to a genocidal assault by the Iran terrorist group Hamas, an assault against Israel and against America and against the citizens of dozens of other countries.

The numbers are staggering: over 1,400 Israelis killed, thousands more wounded and tortured, over 199 kidnapped--alongside them, 30 Americans killed and about a dozen kidnapped, by far one of the deadliest attacks against Americans in history. And so our Israeli allies are rightly going to war to eradicate Hamas.

We often hear that Israel and the United States share the same interests and the same enemies, that when Israel fights for its own security, they are also fighting for ours. Rarely in history has that been so explicitly, horribly true.

And let us be clear about what they are fighting against. What we saw on October 7, in the early hours of Saturday, October 7, was pure evil unleashed, genocidal, exterminationist violence, Nazi tactics in pursuit of Nazi aims. Entire Israeli families were murdered in door-to- door horrors. Israeli babies were brutally slaughtered, burned, and decapitated. Women and young girls were systematically raped.

In some homes, children were shot right in front of their parents. In other homes, parents were shot right in front of their children, and then the children were kidnapped--husbands and wives murdered in front of each other, holocaust survivors massacred. In one home, Israelis found the burned remains of an adult and a child who died hugging each other in terror as they were murdered. They were burned to death, clutching each other in their home. And throughout these atrocities, Hamas terrorists gleefully filmed themselves in ecstatic joy. There are harrowing videos of Israeli babies and toddlers in the hands of Hamas terrorists after they were kidnapped.

Why were these crimes committed? Because the victims were Jews in Israel, because Hamas and the Iranian regime--which arms, funds, and controls Hamas--because both are committed to the eradication of Jews. It was the biggest mass murder of the Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.

At the Supernova music festival--which was billed as a celebration of friends, love, and infinite freedom--young Israelis were dancing when Hamas assassins paraglided in, raining terror from the skies. They shot at defenseless Israelis, murdering 260 of them. They systematically raped survivors. They shot those who were too brutalized to be moved, and they kidnapped others.

At kibbutz Be'eri, 120 people were murdered. Hamas terrorists infiltrated the kibbutz from several directions, and they went home by home murdering people.

One of the victims was Tom Hand's 8-year-old daughter Emily, who was at a sleepover with her friends. Tom is a single father. His wife, Emily's mom, had passed away earlier from cancer. On that Saturday morning when Hamas invaded the kibbutz, Tom, thankfully, was able to get out alive. Emily was murdered.

In another kibbutz, 16-year-old Rotem Matias was with his parents Deborah and Shlomi when Hamas terrorists came into their home. The terrorists shot Shlomi in the arm, blowing his arm off. Deborah, heroically, shielded Rotem with her body to save him. Both of Rotem's parents were murdered.

At kibbutz Nir Oz, Yarden and Shiri Bibas, along with their 3-year- old son and their 9-month-old son, were all hiding in their home when Hamas terrorists entered. They took Shiri and her sons, and they kidnapped them. No one has heard from Yarden. Shiri and her sons are now hostages in Gaza as well as Shiri's parents.

These were all by design. We know from documents discovered on terrorists' bodies that their goals were to ``kill as many as possible'' and ``capture hostages.'' We know they sought out specifically children, and they went specifically to children's rooms.

In the face of this evil, Israel must and Israel will defend herself.

America's policy should be absolutely unequivocal: to ensure that Israel has the military and the diplomatic support to utterly eradicate Hamas, for as long as it takes.

I want to repeat that last part: for as long as it takes.

I give you my word that I will do everything in my power and ability and use every resource at my disposal to ensure that that is indeed America's policy.

So what do we do immediately? We know what Israel needs in the short term. Our Israeli allies need air defenses, and they need weapons. We must make sure together that they get them.

If we can get those things from prepositioned weapons we keep on their soil, the war reserve stock, that is where they will get them from. If it needs to be shipped to them, we will ship it to them. And if the President needs more authorization or more money, Congress must find a way to give it to him.

Over the last week, we have heard objections from various parts of Capitol Hill about arming Israel. There have instead been calls for withholding support and pressuring Israel into an immediate ceasefire. These people draw a moral equivalency between our Israeli allies and these Hamas terrorists.

This is a battle between good and evil. Anyone who draws a moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel is shamefully lying.

This is an existential fight for Israel. As Golda Meir once said, ``If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.''

That is as true today as it was when she said it.

Hamas uses human shields as standard practice. Israel does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties. They are polar opposites.

The Israeli Government asks innocent civilians to get out of harm's way. They go so far as to send texts to Palestinians warning them to evacuate. They do things like if they are going to bomb a building where they know Hamas rockets are stored or they have terrorists hiding, they will send a text to every person in that building and even drop a dud bomb on top of the building that lands with a thud that doesn't explode--designed to warn the civilians to evacuate the building because the next bomb to take out the weapons or take out the terrorists is going to explode. And then, no doubt, they will level the building because they are trying to get rid of murderers. No other military on Earth goes to such extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. And there is no moral equivalency here--zero--between Israeli soldiers protecting civilians and Hamas monsters targeting babies. Much more needs to be done and can be done to counter the use of human shields by Hamas and other Iran-controlled terrorist organizations.

In 2014, I was proud to author a resolution in the Senate, cosponsored by Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, condemning the use of human shields by Hamas as a war crime. That bipartisan resolution passed the Senate 100 to nothing.

Later, in 2019, I wrote and passed language that imposes sanctions on Hamas, on Hezbollah, on any other terrorist group that uses human shields. Now, that was a much tougher fight because sanctions always are, but by working in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion, we passed that law as well. Since 2019, there are new groups that are using human shields that need to be added, especially the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the law itself needs to be extended and strengthened. I intend to work in a bipartisan way to do exactly that in this Congress.

Unequivocal support from the United States is critical. We are already seeing pressure from across the world and from far too many places here in Washington for our Israeli allies to stand

down. It is, unfortunately, well known--predictable--that as soon as Israel begins to defend itself from terrorists, from the very beginning, a clock starts ticking until pressure on them to stand down becomes immense. It is a surreal, disquieting, and shameful spectacle. This time, the calls for Israel to stand down began while Hamas terrorists were still on Israeli territory as the attack was ongoing.

And I am saddened to say, they came, among other places, from within the Biden administration itself.

As the Hamas invasion was becoming horrifically public, as the first reports of atrocities were being published, here is what the Biden State Department tweeted out:

We unequivocally condemn the attack of Hamas terrorists and

the loss of life that has incurred. We urge all sides to

refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and

violence solve nothing.

Now, to be clear, that was a message to the Israelis from the U.S. Department of State: Refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and violence solve nothing, so do nothing against the terrorists who were then murdering over 1,000 Israelis. That was from the U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs of the U.S. State Department.

They sent this tweet out at 3 a.m., DC time, literally as these murders, as these rapes, as these brutal assaults were happening. I caught it within about an hour, and it was obvious what they were trying to do. So I made it clear what I intended to do, and I publicly responded to that tweet by saying:

This is disgraceful, and every . . . person involved in

drafting and approving this tweet should be immediately

expelled from the U.S. government.

So their first instinct was to tell Israel: Your country is being invaded, terrorists are murdering your civilians, your citizens are being kidnapped, infants and children are being murdered, and the position of the U.S. State Department is, Israel, please do nothing. Do not engage in retaliatory strikes. Just sit there and allow the terrorists to murder your citizens.

Within the hour, the State Department deleted their tweet. Later that day, they apologized. They said the tweet was unauthorized, and it didn't reflect their policy--except they weren't done.

A few hours later, the Twitter account of the Secretary of State Antony Blinken posted a note saying the Secretary of State was encouraging an immediate ceasefire. Understand the word ``ceasefire'' is not directed at the terrorists; it is directed at Israel. They are saying: Israel, do not defend yourself. Do not kill the Hamas terrorists.

I, likewise, denounced that tweet, and for the second time in 24 hours the Department of State had to delete yet another tweet. That is in the first day that this attack proceeded.

This is not a time for partisan disagreements. We should be standing together with Israel. And I will be the first to admit that much of what President Biden has said himself since then has been welcome. His first major speech on this crisis was very strong in parts.

The problem is that this administration--this White House, this Department of State--is filled with passionate opponents of Israel, and every time President Biden has spoken in support of Israel, he has been undercut by staffers before and after.

The President just traveled to Israel yesterday in what was an unprecedented trip. I am glad the President went to Israel. That was a strong statement for him to be physically there on the ground during this war. But on the way there, literally on the plane, a White House spokesperson said the purpose of the trip was to have the President ask the Israelis ``tough questions.'' Even on the night before his speech last week, Biden's Deputy National Security Advisor had gone on MSNBC and warned the Israelis that ``[i]t is our advice that this war be conducted based on the principles of international law.''

(Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, what does that mean?

Has Israel ever not fought its wars based on the principles of international law? Why is that something they are publicly lecturing Israel on? And even if it did come up in discussions with Israel, why lecture them publicly?

I remember well September 11, the horror of the greatest attack on the United States in American history. And I don't recall any American ally publicly lecturing America: Follow international law. I don't recall any foreign heads of state traveling here to ask us the tough questions: Are you going to dare retaliate against the terrorists? Instead, our friends said: We stand with you. Period.

After President Biden's speech at the White House, the White House officials stated:

We support Israel taking necessary and proportionate

action.

Understand that word ``proportionate.'' You are going to hear it again. You are going to hear again from the enemies of Israel who are already preparing to attack and undermine each and every step Israel takes to eradicate the Hamas terrorists. They are going to say: It is not proportionate.

What is a proportionate response to the beheading of babies? What is a proportionate response to the systematic murder of entire families? For that matter, what is a proportionate response to a genocidal campaign?

The Biden administration's ideological, partisan reaction day after day to all of this is tragic. They see these terrorist attacks, and their immediate reaction is: I hope Israel doesn't respond by killing the terrorists too much.

Why? Well, because I think at least some in the Biden administration feel a need to appeal to the radical leftwing base, which includes BLM, which includes the Democratic Socialists of America, which includes the anti-Semitic Squad in the House, as well as the woke university students at Harvard and other so-called elite universities.

At Harvard, 35 student groups, in the aftermath of Hamas's attack, blamed Israel. These organizations and these elite universities, sadly, have become venomous pits of anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel. The 35 student groups at Harvard put out a joint statement by the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Group, and I want the American people to know what they said.

They said:

We the undersigned student organizations hold the Israeli

regime entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence.

That is the opening sentence of their statement. They believe it is Israel's fault that Hamas terrorists are raping women and young girls in the street. They believe it is Israel's fault that Hamas is mutilating babies and kidnapping them and holding them hostage. They believe it is Israel's fault that Hamas is using toddlers as human shields. They believe it is Israel's fault that Hamas is targeting and murdering civilians, indiscriminately going house by house by house. That sentiment is sick and twisted and wrong.

Now, I also worry that, in addition to the knee-jerk, partisan, ideological reaction, the Biden administration also has a very real interest in dampening Israel's response, because every day that the war goes on, people will ask: Where does Hamas get the resources to keep fighting?

The answer is obvious. This massacre--this horrific assault on Israel--was funded by Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah are both Iranian proxies. They work for Iran; they work under the direction of Iran; and they are funded by Iran. Without Iran, there would be no Hamas.

When it was first reported that these attacks had been planned or signed off on by the Iranian Government, the usual Iran echo chamber went to work defending the regime. They said there was no evidence. The administration and an awful lot of congressional Democrats said they weren't sure either. But do you know what no one denies? Do you know what makes these denials so strange? No one denies that Hamas is armed and funded and directed by Iran.

The game these people are playing is, they say: Well, we can't be sure. We don't have video evidence. We don't have an audio recording of the Ayatollah looking at a map and telling Hamas where to breach the border fence. So we can't be sure. We have to look into it more.

What utter nonsense.

Why are they so defensive? Well, because, since President Biden took office, this White House has been responsible for nearly $100 billion flowing to

Iran, and much of that money has gone directly to Hamas and directly to Hezbollah.

You know, now everyone acknowledges the $6 billion in ransom money that Joe Biden paid to get five Americans out of Iranian custody. I am glad that now Democrats have joined what I and many others said was a tragic mistake that put a bounty on Americans. It set a price: $1.2 billion is what the Biden administration will pay you if you kidnap Americans. At the time, I said more Americans will be kidnapped, and Iran will kidnap more Americans. I am very sorry to say that prediction came true in just a matter of weeks.

My Democratic colleagues would not stand with us to cut off that $6 billion when it was paid initially. Now we have Democrats willing to do so. That is a step in the right direction. But understand the $6 billion is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only a tiny portion of the money that this administration, the Biden administration, has flooded Iran with.

A few weeks before the $6 billion deal, Biden made available $10 billion related to electricity that Iraq bought from Iran, and both of those--the $16 billion--pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars--as much as $80 billion--that Iran has made from illicit oil sales under Biden. Understand, when Joe Biden came into office, the Iranian regime was on its knees. The economy was in shambles. Why? Because the Ayatollah gets its principal revenue from selling oil.

When Donald Trump was President, I spent much of the Presidency urging President Trump to vigorously enforce the oil sanctions, to cripple their oil sales. Iran had been selling a million barrels a day of oil. President Trump agreed with me and vigorously enforced the sanctions. Those oil sales were crushed, and the Iranian economy collapsed. That is what President Biden inherited--an Iran in shambles economically.

And what did the Biden administration do immediately? It ceased enforcing oil sanctions. It said, in effect: Sell all of the oil you can. And do you know what? The Ayatollah heard him, because, right now, Iran is selling 2 million barrels a day of oil--the same level they were selling before the sanctions ever passed, more than double what they had been selling before the vigorous enforcement of the oil sanctions under President Trump.

Why is it that so many Democratic politicians hate oil and gas production in the United States and are willing to kill jobs here at home, but when it comes to theocratic, homicidal, genocidal maniacs, they are perfectly happy with letting them reap $80 billion by selling 2 million barrels a day of oil primarily to communist China? That is madness.

So let me say, I am glad the President gives speeches saying: We are standing with Israel. That is great, but actions speak louder than words. If the President wants to stand with Israel, stand up tomorrow and say: We are vigorously enforcing oil sanctions, and we are going to end these oil sales.

To the Democrats in this body who are giving speeches saying we stand with Israel, great. Then join me in saying: We are going to take away the billions of dollars that are flooding into Iran; that are funding Hamas; that are funding the death squads; that are funding the rockets; that are funding the murders of Israelis.

But it wasn't just money to Iran that went to Hamas. The Biden administration also poured money into Hamas areas directly. As soon as they came into office, the Biden administration began flooding money into the Gaza Strip. At the time, I led a coalition of 19 Senators in urging the Biden administration: Do not send money to Gaza. Why? Because Hamas controls Gaza, and if you send hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza, Hamas will use it to commit acts of terrorism against Israelis and Americans.

At the same time that 19 of us urged the administration ``don't fund Gaza because it will fund Hamas terrorism,'' 145 House Democrats sent a letter to the Biden administration, saying: Do fund Gaza even though it will fund Hamas terrorism.

And what did the Biden administration do with these dueling letters from Congress? We now know because the internal government documents of the Biden administration are now public; and the Biden Treasury Department determined there was a ``high risk'' that Hamas would potentially derive benefit from the money they were sending.

Now, ordinarily, that would end the matter because, in their existing U.S. anti-terrorism sanctions, the laws say, if you know there is a high risk it is going to terrorism, you can't send money to do it. Did the Biden administration take that step? No. Instead, they exempted themselves from American laws against funding terrorism. They wanted, as a political matter, to send the cash so much that they were willing to look the other way to, in their own words, the ``high risk'' that that money would go to Hamas to carry out acts of terrorism.

Here is the full quote from the Biden administration document:

Due to its overall strength and level of control over Gaza,

we assess there is a high risk that Hamas could potentially

derive indirect, unintentional benefit from U.S. assistance

to Gaza.

These atrocities in Israel were the direct result of political decisions made by the White House to dismantle pressure and to pour money into Iran and into territories controlled by Iranian terrorists. When you send billions of dollars to people who hate us and want to murder us, we should not be surprised when they use those billions of dollars to murder us.

Not to support Israel in this time of need--not to support them fully for as long as it takes--would be a grave moral failure. This fight is civilization against barbarism. It is good versus evil. The differences between the two sides are as stark as light and darkness. The light and goodness, I believe, will prevail if we stand with Israel.

I want to say something also.

In the last 2 weeks, I have spoken with many of my friends, in particular, many of my Jewish friends. It has been astonishing the number of my Jewish friends in Texas and all across America who have family members or who have close friends in Israel. It has been truly breathtaking the number of American Jews I know well who either lost a loved one in these terrorist attacks or who have relatives or close friends who have been called up to the IDF, who are facing the most significant war in Israel in the last 50 years.

I have spent much of the last 2 weeks reaching out to those friends and just telling them: Heidi and I are praying for you. We are lifting you up. We are lifting your family up. We are lifting the people of Israel up, encouraging them. This has been a frightening time for every Israeli and for a great many Americans.

I hope that, in the face of evil, we see the same solidarity we saw in the wake of September 11. Just as the world rallied to our side when radical Islamic terrorists committed a grotesque act of terror against the United States, now is the time for the world to rally to Israel's side, and now is the time for this body to come together.

There have been policy differences in the past, with some Members of this body and leaders of this administration believing that it is a good idea to send tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran. That policy has been proven catastrophically wrong.

So I hope that we come together and that we stand as one, united, to tell the people of Israel: America stands with Israel for as long as it takes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, unless something significant changes, 35 hours from now, the Federal Government will shut down. At 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, the paychecks will stop for every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, every member of the Space Force, and every coastguardsman. That is not right.

The good news is, we can prevent it. We can prevent it right now. The bill Senator Sullivan and I are trying to pass says that at 12:01 a.m., our Active-Duty military will be paid; that if Washington is dysfunctional, if politicians will bicker throughout the night, that is not their fault, and we are not going to hold them hostage to the partisan demands of politicians.

Right now at home, there are people watching this debate on C-SPAN, and they may be wondering: When did the Senate get this dysfunctional? Did this institution ever operate?

Senator Sullivan pointed to a time when it at least operated a little better than it does now.

In 2013, this identical legislation was before the Senate. There was a Democrat majority. Harry Reid was the majority leader. This identical legislation passed 100 to nothing, and it passed unanimously in the House.

In 2013, Senate Democrats realized: Fine, we will have a fight, but we are not holding our Active-Duty military hostage.

In 2013, Senator Durbin, who is sitting on the floor, voted yes to fund our military. In 2013, Senator Whitehouse, who is sitting on the floor, voted yes to fund our military. In 2013, Senator Murray, who I believe is getting ready to stand up and block this bill, in 2013, she voted yes to fund our military. Have we really gone that far in a decade that Democrats now are perfectly happy to take away the paychecks from the young men and women who are risking their lives to keep us safe?

The Presiding Officer spent years in the Active-Duty military. The Presiding Officer is a proud Navy veteran. The Presiding Officer knows men and women who are serving right now in Active Duty, and I feel quite confident the Presiding Officer doesn't want to go home and look them in the eyes and say: It was my party, the Democratic Party, that took your paycheck away.

Well, it doesn't have to happen.

Everyone at home, I want you to listen to what is going to happen in a moment, because there are two magic words. If you hear two magic words from the Senator from Washington--``I object''--if you hear those words, understand what will have happened. It is the same thing that happened just a couple of days ago, which is that Democrat leadership said to our Active-Duty military: We don't give a damn about you, and we are going to cut off your paycheck Sunday at 12:01 a.m.

That doesn't have to happen.

By the way, I would point out not only is it the fault of every Democrat--and I am sorry, Mr. President--it is the fault of every Democrat because there are no Democrats here supporting us. The Presiding Officer, in his heart, knows we are right, so I am going to invite the Presiding Officer, when we do this again--because we are going to keep doing it and keep doing it. I would invite the Presiding Officer to come join us because the Presiding Officer knows this is the right thing to do. And there are more of your colleagues on the Democrat side who know this is the right thing to do.

Some 19-year-old marine right now in the DMZ facing North Korean machineguns is being told that the U.S. Senate doesn't care enough about his or her service to pay them. That is just wrong. It is stupid.

And this body used to know enough to say: Hey, we have political disagreements here, but we support our troops.

I guarantee you, every Democrat Senator in this Chamber goes home and tells your constituents: I support the troops.

You know what? Talk is cheap. If you support the troops, stand up next to us and say: Let's pay the troops.

And by the way, if you support the troops, go to your leadership and say: Stop this garbage.

Was Harry Reid a rightwing kook? Because Harry Reid signed off on paying the troops. And I will tell you why today's Democrat leadership believes they can get away with it--because in 2013, we had something of a functioning media. They actually reported on what was happening. If you look up in the Gallery, there are a total of zero reporters there. There is not one.

The corrupt corporate media doesn't intend to tell the citizens of Washington State or the citizens of Illinois or the citizens of Rhode Island or the citizens of Arizona--they don't intend to tell them: Your Democrat Senator is why Active-Duty military isn't being paid.

So every reporter yesterday--I had reporters running after me, going: Oh,

isn't this Republican shutdown terrible?

And I said: Those are great talking points. Have you written a single story about the fact that the reason our military is not going to be paid is because Democrat leadership is objecting?

No. Because none of them have written that story. Every one of you knows what the right thing to do is. And so my hope is there is a tiny, still voice inside of some Democrat Senators that will stand up and go to your leadership and say: We can fight all day long on partisan issues, but we are not going to take our troops hostage.

That is the right thing to do, and every Member of this body knows it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the opening of her remarks, the Senator from Washington said: I agree with the objective of this bill; I agree with what Senator Sullivan and Senator Cruz are trying to accomplish. Then she talked for a while, and then she

blocked the entirety of the bill. Everything in between, saying, ``I agree with this bill,'' and the two magic words at the end of her remarks, ``I object,'' I have to admit brought me back to Saturday morning cartoons and watching ``Peanuts'' and the teacher going: ``Wah wah wah wah'' because they were words, but they didn't mean anything.

This is a binary choice. At 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, are soldiers going to get paid, yes or no? Are sailors going to get paid, yes or no? Are airmen going to get paid, yes or no? Are marines going to get paid, yes or no? Are members of the Space Force going to get paid, yes or no? Are coastguardsmen going to get paid, yes or no?

A decade ago, every Member of this body voted to pay them. Since this debate began, the Presiding Officer had been Senator Kelly and has now been replaced by Senator Murphy from Connecticut. I would point out, Senator Murphy voted yes to pay our Active-Duty military in 2013. And yet now the Democrats are blocking those paychecks.

The Senator from Washington said: Well, gosh, the Democrats had a CR that you could have voted for. The Senator from Washington knows fully well that the bill drafted by Democrat leadership is not going to pass the House of Representatives. She knows that. The result is going to be a shutdown. And what has changed from 2013 to now? From to 2013 to now, the Democrat leadership is perfectly willing to hold a young man or woman in the military--to hold their paychecks hostage.

Well, something interesting is going to happen at 12:01 a.m., 35 hours from now. Paychecks of every Federal employee will stop. The paychecks of the stenographer who is recording my words will stop. The paychecks of the clerks sitting down front will stop.

But, you know what, Mr. President? There are 535 people whose paychecks will not stop. Under the Constitution, Members of this body, Senators and Members of the House, their paychecks can't stop even during a shutdown, which means at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, every Democrat Senator will keep drawing their paycheck, while the people risking their lives to defend us will not.

Well, I will tell you, I have in writing instructed the Senate that I will not accept a paycheck so long as our Active-Duty military is not being paid.

It is wrong. Senators are paid $174,000 a year, by law. The Democrat leadership, who stands up and says, ``I object,'' is telling a 19-year- old woman in a nuclear sub right now, defending our Nation, that her paycheck doesn't matter anymore.

There is, right now, a mom in tennis shoes serving in the military who is discovering that her mortgage payment--she doesn't know how to pay.

And so I am going to suggest to the reporters who aren't here and aren't covering this that so long as Democrat leadership keeps blocking what has been bipartisan and unanimous legislation previously, that every Democrat Senator ought to be asked: Are you taking a paycheck come 12:01 a.m. on Sunday? They are the ones objecting. They are the ones stopping. Every soldier needs to understand: Why are you not being paid? Because the Democrat objected. Every sailor needs to understand: Because the Democrats objected. Every airman, marine, coastguardsman, every member of the Space Force, when your paycheck goes away 35 hours from now, it is because of two magic words the Democrat leadership has said. Let's be clear, it is not just the Senator from Washington. She is doing it on instruction from the Democrat leadership. They could change it like that.

I can tell you this. Senator Sullivan and I are going to keep coming back over and over again because there is not a Member of this body who wants to go home to your State--even a State like Connecticut. You don't want to be at home looking at Active-Duty military and saying: Yes, my party took away your paycheck. That is too cynical even for this body. I pray that common sense comes back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my friend from Alaska in a plea to sanity and common sense in this body.

We are 3 days away from an impending government shutdown. I believe a shutdown is likely because I believe President Biden and Senator Schumer want a shutdown. I think they believe it benefits them politically to force a shutdown. Whether I am right or wrong on that, everyone acknowledges there is a very significant risk of a shutdown 72 hours from now.

As it stands right now, if we have that government shutdown 72 hours from now, our service men and women will still go to work. Our military will still show up. Even with a shutdown, the military has to do its job and keep this Nation safe. But what will happen is their paychecks will go away.

Last week, Senator Sullivan and I both came to the Senate floor seeking to pass my legislation, the Pay Our Coast Guard Act. That legislation is bipartisan. I am the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee. It was authored by me and cosponsored by Maria Cantwell, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. It was also cosponsored by Senator Sullivan and Senator Tammy Baldwin, the chairman and ranking member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee.

The reason my legislation, last week, was introduced is the last time we had a shutdown in 2019--the Schumer shutdown--the government was shut down for 34 days, and soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines were paid because the Department of Defense appropriations had been passed. But coastguardsmen were not because they are not under DOD; they are under the Department of Homeland Security.

So for 34 days, heroic coastguardsmen guarded our coasts, saved people off the coast of Texas, were there when people needed them in times of disaster, and yet they didn't get a paycheck. That was wrong.

In 2019, Senator Sullivan and I came to the Senate floor then and tried to pass a bill to pay our coastguardsmen in the middle of the Schumer shutdown, and the Democrats objected. Democrat leadership said: No, we will not pay our coastguardsmen.

Well, last week, I tried to say: We have bipartisan legislation. Let's do it right. Let's not hurt brave young men and women who are protecting this country.

Unfortunately, Democrat leadership stood up and uttered two words: I object. In fact, the Senator from Washington had an argument that I found thoroughly curious. She said: Well, this bill that Cruz and Sullivan are trying to pass--it wouldn't technically mandate that coastguardsmen be paid because what the bill provided is they should be paid if soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are paid. So it argued we should treat the military evenly and fairly and not discriminate against the Coast Guard. She said: That is the reason I am objecting-- because it doesn't mandate that it happen.

Well, you know what, what the Senator from Washington asked for is what we are right here now doing. This bill does what she said last week was the reason she was objecting. That is what this bill does.

Ten years ago, this bill passed the Senate 100 to 0. The Presiding Officer and I were both in the Senate. That means the Presiding Officer voted for it, and I voted for it. That means the Senator from Washington voted for it. It means the House passed it unanimously. But in the decade that has passed, I guess common sense has gone out the window.

So I want to say something right now to every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, every coastguardsman, every member of the Space Force. If you are a 19-year-old private or corporal stationed at Fort Bliss right now, next week, there is a very good chance your paycheck is going away. We are going to find out in just a few moments whether or not your paycheck is going away.

And just listen very carefully for two words. If we hear two words from the Senator from Washington, the words ``I object,'' those two words uttered on behalf of Democrat leadership will kill this bill.

When your paycheck goes away next week, understand you would have been paid except for the fact that Democrat leadership decided it is in their political interest to hold that 19-year-old hostage. Never mind that you can't pay for groceries for your wife and kid that week. Never mind that you can't pay your rent, you can't pay your bills. Never mind--a marine who is stationed in harm's way--that your paycheck is going to go away. Why? Because partisanship is so rife in this town that the Democrat leadership believes they can hold these young fighting men and women hostage and pay no political price.

I hope the Senator from Washington listens to what I have said and what the Senator from Alaska has said and decides, you know, it is not right to hold these brave men and women hostage, and we are not going to do it. I hope Democrat leadership puts principle above partisan politics, but we are about to find out.

Mr. President, I am very frequently in complete agreement with my friend and colleague from Alaska. I do disagree with two words he just said. He said this was good, old-fashioned hostage-taking. There is nothing old-fashioned about this. This is brand new. Even the Democrats, as partisan as they have been, they haven't done this before. Ten years ago, every Democrat--even the most leftwing Democrat--agreed we should pay our service men and women. This hostage- taking is brand new. You want to see the face of vicious partisanship in Washington? You just did.

Now, I will point out also two things that are blazingly obvious. No. 1, last week, when the Senator from Washington objected to my legislation to pay our Coast Guard, to treat our coastguardsmen the same as other Active-Duty military, she stood up and gave a speech in which she said she supported that goal but the bill I introduced didn't mandate that it happen; it only said they had to be treated with parity, and that is why she objected. So Senator Sullivan and I came and introduced the bill she asked for that mandated that all of the military be paid.

She didn't explain her change of position, but what she did implicitly is say that every word she said last week was not true, that the reason she gave for objecting to my bill apparently was not the reason she was objecting to the bill because she just objected right here.

I have to say--listen--every Member of this body, every Democrat, when you go home to your State, when you meet with Active-Duty military, when you meet with the veterans, I guarantee you every Member of this body said: I support the troops.

Well, as long as Democrat leadership keeps doing what they just did, it ain't true that you support the troops.

I want to point out right now, there are some Democrats who might try to hide behind the skirts of their leadership and say: We didn't object.

There are no Democrats on this floor. Nobody is here with us. The Senator from Washington didn't even bother to stay and participate in the debate. That is how little she is interested in the merits of this issue. What she said--and I want you to hear the argument she gave. She said, now, the new reason she is objecting is she says she wants everyone to be paid, and if everyone can't be paid, then nobody will be paid.

Understand, she is telling the young marine stationed just a mile from North Korea, facing machine guns, that it is the position of Senate Democrats that they care more about paying IRS agents and EPA regulators and bureaucrats than they do about that young marine. Right now, there is a sailor in a nuclear submarine a mile underwater who may not even know it, but her paycheck is likely to disappear in 3 days. And Senate Democrats have said there is no difference.

You know what, the military is often referred to as the 1 percent. There is a difference--the men and women who put on the uniform and take the oath and defend this Nation. And my hope is that somewhere in the Democratic Party, saner voices will prevail.

I get there is an attraction to ``We have a partisan fight.'' I get that Democrats want to try to stick it to Republicans. But don't scapegoat the military in the process.

I want to speak for the moment to the press. Part of the reason the Democrats are objecting is they are confident CNN will not report on this. They are confident MSNBC will not say a word about this. They are confident, if you turn on the nightly news, NBC, ABC, CBS will not say a word. And they believe that come Monday, when that young soldier, sailor, airman, marine--his or her paycheck disappears, they believe that they will never know it was the Democrats who blocked their paycheck, who objected to it. Well, it is up to the media to decide are they actually journalists, are they going to report on what happened.

If we end up having a shutdown, I can promise you, Senator Sullivan and I will be back. We will be on this floor, and we will see just how many times the Democrats want to object to paying our Active-Duty military.

Mind you, they have to work. They will show up at work regardless. But maybe it is the position of today's Democratic Party that you can show up and work and defend this Nation and keep us safe but Democrats aren't going to pay you. That is really sad. It is unfortunate.

I see my friend the Senator from Virginia has come in on another matter. I hope voices like his will say to his leadership: This is dumb. Don't hold our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coastguardsmen hostage over a political fight in Washington. If politicians can't get their act together by September 30, don't punish the Active-Duty military.

I know the Senator from Virginia cares about those Active-Duty military. It is, right now, his party that is blocking their paychecks.

So my hope is that saner voices prevail in the Democratic Party. I hope we can come back here and do this exact same thing with one minor alteration--that next time we eliminate those two words: ``I object.''

And once the Democrats decide no longer to say the words ``I object,'' this bill will pass, the House will pass it, and our fighting men and women will get the paychecks they have earned--they have earned--with courage and blood. We owe it to them. This body needs to do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since 1790, the Coast Guard, our Nation's oldest continuous seagoing service, has been the world's premier force in maritime safety, security, and stewardship. Guided by its core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty, the Coast Guard is a symbol of resolve to our adversaries and of hope to those in peril at sea.

Our Nation relies on more than 50,000 members of the Coast Guard each day to keep our country safe, to project national power, and to champion the rule of law and governance on our waters and beyond.

In Texas, Coast Guard members are on patrol 365 days a year. From Station South Padre Island to Sector Houston-Galveston and beyond, Coast Guard members keep our citizens and our country safe. Just this week, a Coast Guard Air Station Houston helicopter crew completed a daring rescue, saving the life of a mariner 10 miles off the coast of Galveston, TX. When our Nation calls, the Coast Guard is always ready to answer.

As the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has responsibility for policies affecting the Coast Guard and Coast Guard servicemembers and their families, I believe that in the event of a shutdown, the Coast Guard must be paid without question and without delay.

That is why, last week, I introduced the bipartisan Pay Our Coast Guard Act, which would treat coastguardsmen the same as all other servicemembers for purposes of pay and benefits if there is a lapse in appropriations. If a continuing resolution is not passed, the prudent thing to do--the right thing to do--is to agree now that we will pay the men and women of the Coast Guard. That is what this bill does.

If there is a shutdown, military personnel from all branches of the Armed Forces will keep working. In past shutdowns, Congress acted swiftly to pay our troops. But since the Coast Guard is housed in the Department of Homeland Security and not the Department of Defense, coastguardsmen were left out; they weren't compensated.

Our bipartisan legislation, which I introduced along with Senators Cantwell, Sullivan, and Baldwin, avoids that scenario by saying if there is a shutdown, all of our Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard, must be paid. This bipartisan bill makes clear, here and now, that we will not take the Coast Guard hostage to a shutdown fight.

While the American people can always count on the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard has not been always able to count on this Chamber to do the right thing. During the last government shutdown, which was precipitated by the Democrat majority in this Chamber in 2019, members of a single branch of our Armed Forces, the Coast Guard, worked without paychecks for 34 days, oftentimes alongside servicemembers of other branches who were still being paid. The Defense Department was funded, but the Homeland Security Department was not. So I joined with several Senate colleagues to advance a bill that would have treated members of the Coast Guard the same as those of the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps.

That bill was brought up before the entire U.S. Senate, but it was blocked by the Democratic leader.

The only thing necessary to ensure timely payment of every Coast Guard servicemember was for my colleagues

across the aisle to withdraw their objection. Regrettably, that did not happen. While coastguardsmen put their lives in danger protecting our maritime borders, some of their families were forced to resort to food pantries and short-term loans to pay for housing.

We have the opportunity today to get that right. Last month we marked the 233rd birthday of the Coast Guard. To commemorate the occasion, this Chamber unanimously passed a resolution that I introduced honoring the Coast Guard's excellence in maritime border security. The resolution also expressed the Senate's gratitude for the Coast Guard's work in protecting our people and our borders from illegal immigration and keeping deadly drugs like cocaine and fentanyl from entering the United States.

Again, that resolution passed the Senate unanimously in July. I hope to see similar unanimous support for the Coast Guard from my colleagues today. Let's not wait until we know if there is going to be a shutdown or not to make sure that coastguardsmen are treated fairly and equitably. Let's act now to show the coastguardsmen who keep us safe that we have got their backs as well.

Let's do the right thing by making clear that if we pay our Department of Defense groups, we are also going to pay our troops from the Coast Guard.

At this point, I want to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Sullivan for his excellent and heartfelt remarks.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2791, the Pay Our Coast Guard Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want every member of the Coast Guard to understand what just happened. We are 9 days away from the expiration of current government funding. No one here knows whether a shutdown will happen or not, but it is not complicated, with partisan divisions in Washington, that there is a very real risk of a shutdown.

I believe President Biden and the majority leader of the Senate-- Senator Schumer--want a shutdown. Whether they want it or not, it is clear there is a very real risk. And if, 9 days from now, what happened in 2019 happens again, which is that our soldiers are paid, our sailors are paid, our airmen are paid, our marines are paid, but our coastguardsmen are left in the lurch--that is what happened in 2019, when Senator Sullivan and I came to the floor, tried to take care of our coastguardsmen then, and the Democrats objected. And if, 9 days from now, for the over 50,000 coastguardsmen across this country, their paychecks stop, you will know why, and it was because of two simple words just uttered on behalf of Democrat leadership: ``I object.''

Had the Democrats simply not said those words--``I object''--our coastguardsmen would be paid in 9 days. And understand that this legislation, as Senator Sullivan pointed out, is bipartisan legislation. It is authored by the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Coast Guard. And yet Democrat leadership wants to engage in a partisan battle with the House of Representatives, and they want to hold the men and women of the Coast Guard hostage.

I am going to urge the Democrat leadership to reconsider. I don't know

whether we will have a shutdown or not, but I know it is unfair to treat coastguardsmen like the red-haired stepchild of our Armed Forces.

The men and women of the Coast Guard, when disaster strikes--and, look, I saw firsthand, when Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, the incredible heroism of coastguardsmen who risked their lives to save people in harm's way.

What just happened on the Senate floor is not right, and I would encourage Democrat leadership to listen to their own Democrat chairman of the Commerce Committee, their own ranking member of the Coast Guard committee and say: We are going to end this unfair discrimination against the Coast Guard. We are going to treat our Armed Forces with equity, and regardless of dysfunction in Washington, we are going to pay our Coast Guard.

It is the right thing to do, and I would urge members from both sides of the aisle to come together and say: Just as we know the Coast Guard has our back if we are in trouble, that we have got their back as well. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Anna Gomez, one of President Biden's FCC nominees. If confirmed, she would give the Democrats a majority at the FCC that would enable them to impose a radical leftwing agenda, including investment-killing and job-killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as ``Obamacare for the internet.''

I strongly oppose her nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. The FCC exercises vast power over how Americans communicate and access information. It also has a history of abusing vague statutory provisions to pursue partisan policy goals. In the wrong hands, the FCC could go down a dark path of censoring speech and engaging in regulatory overreach.

Under current Democrat FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel's leadership, that threat is not merely hypothetical. The FCC has engaged in unprecedented abuses of power, such as killing the multibillion-dollar Standard General-TEGNA transaction without a Commission vote, attempting to expand the Universal Service Fund spending in defiance of clear statutory limits, and holding valuable 2.5 gigahertz spectrum licenses hostage.

Even more alarming, the FCC is now entertaining requests by radical leftwing groups to revoke a broadcast station's license for alleged ``misinformation'' and turning a routine FCC license renewal proceeding into a truth commission, an alarming assault on the First Amendment. And that is without a Democrat majority on the FCC. With a majority, there is no telling what regulatory excesses the Chairwoman could inflict--from forcing antiquated telephone monopoly rules on the competitive broadband industry to micromanaging providers' rates and terms of service, to imposing crippling new legal risks on American companies through ``disparate impact'' lawsuits.

Make no mistake, a vote for Anna Gomez is a vote for regulating the internet as a public utility. Ms. Gomez has publicly supported the reinstatement of the heavyhanded Obama-era net neutrality rules that would make the internet more expensive and slower for American households, despite privately confessing that Democrats had engaged in wild ``hyperbole'' in opposing the repeal of net neutrality.

Rather than giving reasons for the reinstatement of the failed net neutrality rules, she claims she simply wants ``robust authority'' over the internet. In other words, the power to regulate companies' pricing and terms of service and to collect billions of dollars in new taxes from them and from you, the consumer, all at the expense of investment and innovation and consumer choice.

She has also refused to disavow the ongoing efforts to impose investment-killing ``disparate impact'' liability on American broadband companies. And she has given noncommittal answers to my requests for commitments to improve transparency and accountability at the FCC.

Ms. Gomez has a history of failing to protect taxpayer interests. In the Obama administration, she had a senior leadership role in implementing a wasteful $4 billion broadband grant program. In one egregious example, funding from a $100 million project in Colorado was used to build a third fiber connection to a single school of 11 students. But by far, most concerning in Ms. Gomez's history is her tweets concerning the use of government power to police so-called misinformation.

For instance, she retweeted a claim made by Democrat Congresswoman Cori Bush, who is a member of the radical leftwing squad in the House, that Trump engaged in a ``targeted mass disinformation campaign against 3.5 million Black voters in 2016'' for the purpose of voter suppression.

In addition, she tweeted enthusiastically in support of efforts by the Defense Department's research wing--known as DARPA--and the Federal Government to crack down on so-called disinformation. At this point, it is, sadly, well known that the Biden administration has repeatedly trampled on the First Amendment to silence opposing views.

The White House Press Secretary publicly bragged that they were ``in regular touch'' and ``flagging problematic posts'' for social media companies and threatening new legislation if those companies did not heed the censors. And the Biden DHS tried to create its own ``ministry of truth'' before a public backlash shamed them into disbanding the effort.

Amid these First Amendment assaults, as well as recent efforts at the FCC to deplatform a FOX broadcast station, it was critical to gain clarity into Ms. Gomez's views on free speech, ``disinformation,'' and the FCC's role in such matters.

Unfortunately, she gave vague answers to my questions and did not reassure the Commerce Committee that she would actively oppose censorship at the FCC.

Confirming Ms. Gomez would harm taxpayers, broadband investment, innovation, and most importantly, our First Amendment freedoms.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose her nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Coito, a Coast Guard fellow at the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of Congress.

I call up my amendment No. 421, and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, last December, Marine Gen. David Berger stated the obvious, that the Department of Defense's COVID vaccine mandate hurt recruiting and hurt retention.

For several weeks now, our Democratic colleagues have been saying that military readiness is suffering due to promotion delays. Well, I have good news for my colleagues. My amendment will help address these problems.

While last year's NDAA, quite rightly, repealed the vaccine mandate prospectively, problems caused by the mandate persist, including concerning recruiting, retention, and readiness.

According to reports, the Biden administration dismissed over 8,400 military servicemembers who had vaccine concerns. DOD routinely denied religious accommodation requests, violating the rights of servicemembers protected by the Constitution and RFRA.

DOD gave over 80 percent of these servicemembers a ``general discharge,'' causing them to lose GI benefits and, in some cases, VA benefits, even those were benefits earned through honorable service.

My amendment rights these wrongs. It will allow servicemembers dismissed over the vaccine mandate to seek reinstatement or a change in their discharge status. It restores lost GI and VA benefits.

According to media reports, the DOD is already contemplating all of these actions, but I believe the Senate should lead to address these issues. They have ended the vaccine mandate, and it is not fair to the over 8,000 service men and women dismissed for a policy DOD no longer believes is necessary. I urge Members to support my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.