Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, Chase Johnson is the nominee here. This is a cloture vote. He is a marine. He is a Marine Reserve veteran. He is an accomplished attorney. He was reported from the Commerce Committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote. The distinguished ranking member who just spoke made the motion that Chase Johnson be reported. We are the victim this afternoon of some absences. We are also the victim this afternoon of some discussion and some differences that have arisen over extraneous issues, and I would just urge my colleagues, both on and off the committee, to remember that this was a unanimous vote out of the committee. This is an outstanding candidate, and he deserves to be confirmed. With that, I ask for a yes vote. And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on this nomination for 1 minute.

Mr. WICKER

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Schwartz vote begin now, some 2 minutes early.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cantwell, Blunt, Romney, Schumer, and I be able to complete our remarks before the next vote.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this discussion except to make one additional point about the unselfishness and humility of this hero of the Senate, whose remarks we will long remember today. There is a framed piece of legislation that hangs on the wall in my conference room in the Dirksen Building. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that Senator Alexander chose to mention as one of his signature accomplishments, and that is the American History and Civics Education Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. There is a story about how I came to have that piece of legislation, which Senator Alexander worked so hard on, on the wall in my conference room. I live in North Mississippi, and, as such, I listen to Memphis television a lot. During Lamar Alexander's first race for Senator, on came a commercial, and, basically, it said just what our friend from Texas just quoted--that this candidate for Senator, former Governor Lamar Alexander, wanted to pass an American civics education bill to teach our children what it means to be an American. I stopped at that moment, and I pointed to that television screen, and I said: If that man gets elected, I want to be part of that bill because that is exactly what we need. So Senator Alexander introduced the bill here in the Senate. I introduced it in the House of Representatives. We made public appearances together, one in Memphis, TN, that I will always remember. Eventually, the bill gained a lot of support over here, and Senator Kennedy, as has been mentioned, was someone at the forefront of that effort. We were able to pass it in the House. It went to conference to iron out the details, and a decision had to be made as to which one would actually be enacted by both Houses and go to the President for his signature. Lamar Alexander allowed the piece of legislation introduced by a relatively junior Member of the House named Roger Wicker to be that piece of legislation that went on to the White House, to the Oval Office, to be signed by the President of the United States. So that is how that piece of legislation hangs on my wall as a bill authored by Representative Roger Wicker but passed very much with the efforts of Senator Alexander also. I just wanted to mention that, not to prolong this discussion but to mention that act of selflessness and humility as another attribute of this great Senator to whom we say farewell today. I think the remarks we heard from Senator Alexander will be taught at civics classes and college-level government classes for decades and decades to come. It was so profound, and it is a real honor that a piece of legislation that he and I worked on together will always be a part of what I consider to be those immortal remarks. So I thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the vote on the McNeel nomination to begin now.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Taylor Brantley McNeel for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. We will vote in a few minutes on the first vote for this outstanding nominee, the cloture vote, and then I have every reason to believe that tomorrow, this outstanding candidate will be confirmed for elevation to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. Sometimes when we vote, those confirmation votes are party-line votes. I think, happily, many times they are bipartisan. Based on conversations across the aisle, I have every reason to believe that the vote on Taylor McNeel will, in fact, be bipartisan. I certainly hope it will be because his support back home in Mississippi is certainly bipartisan and multicultural because he is such an outstanding individual and such an outstanding attorney and an outstanding member of our State community. Taylor McNeel's life has been marked by excellence at every point. Of course, he is a great lawyer. He is a partner in the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, where he oversees the gulf coast office for this large law firm. Taylor McNeel has led a distinguished career in the firm, with extensive experience in both bench and jury trials in Federal and State courts. He has served as lead counsel for numerous appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Mississippi Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His clients include individuals, government entities, and businesses covering a vast range of law. I believe Senators should be impressed also by his work on behalf of disadvantaged members of our community back home. He maintains a strong pro bono practice, representing clients who would not normally be able to afford legal services. I think he is to be commended for that. His academic credentials are impeccable. He was a cum laude graduate from the University of Mississippi, where he received his undergraduate degree. As an undergraduate, he was an outstanding athlete as well as leader. He was a member of the Ole Miss Rebel football team and was elected senior class president of that outstanding university. He went on to receive his juris doctor degree cum laude from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where he served on the Mississippi Law Journal. Taylor McNeel has been widely recognized as a young lawyer to watch. He has been named a Mid-South Rising Star in business litigation for 8 years in a row and has been listed 3 years in a row in the 40 & Under Hot List for the United States in benchmark litigation. Is it any wonder, then, that he has received a unanimous ``qualified'' rating by the American Bar Association? Of course, we know that the highest rating a candidate for district judge can receive is the rating of ``qualified,'' and the fact that this was done unanimously by the committee--it just doesn't get any better than that for a candidate for district judge. It is important to note also that Mr. McNeel is an outstanding and active member in his community and is widely respected there. He serves on the school board of the Pascagoula-Gautier School District. I might add that is a racially diverse school district. He is an elder in his church, First Presbyterian Church in Pascagoula, and he has been a member of the Rotary Club of Biloxi. Pascagoula is in Jackson County, where he is an outstanding citizen. Biloxi is in Harrison County, and he is a leader there. They are two of our most populous counties in the State of Mississippi, and he stands head and shoulders above the crowd in both of those. He has been president of the Harrison County Bar Association and holds memberships in the American Inns of Court, the Federal Bar Association, Fifth Circuit Bar Association, and the Federalist Society. Taylor and his wife Jessica have three children: Mollie, age 10; Taylor, age 7; and Brantley Rose, born on the 2nd day of this month. He has his hands full. I think he will be able to balance being a dad as well as a district judge. He has outstanding qualifications in the academic field, the judicial field, and his personal qualifications are absolutely out of this world. I am confident he will serve the Southern District of Mississippi and our country well if confirmed. We will vote on cloture in a few moments. Again, I am sincerely hoping and believe we will--based on conversations--have a bipartisan vote, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the confirmation of Taylor McNeel. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, November 30, 2020, at 6 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon, as I do, to commend an outstanding young American. In this case, a young Mississippian; namely, Miss Asya Branch, from Booneville, MS, who was recently crowned as Miss USA 2020. For those of you from Michigan, take some pride. She was born in Michigan but moved to Mississippi at an early age and spent her childhood in Booneville, as I said. She graduated this year from my alma mater, the University of Mississippi, having studied broadcast journalism. Miss Asya Branch has experienced dizzying success during the past 2 years. In 2018, Asya Branch won the title of Miss Mississippi under the Miss America Organization. The following year, she became the first African-American woman to win the other State title, Miss Mississippi USA. She is only the seventh person in history to hold both State titles: Miss Mississippi and Miss Mississippi USA. And now she is the first-ever Miss Mississippi USA to win the Miss USA crown. Asya Branch has been competing in pageants since 2016, when she won her first preliminary title in the Miss Mississippi competition. She went on to win Ole Miss's Parade of Beauties competition and numerous local titles. She has gained wide recognition because she is beautiful, well-spoken, and she is a gifted vocalist. But, also, there is a serious part of her platform and serious personal story of Asya's in overcoming adversity, and I admire that so much in Asya Branch. She speaks openly about her father's 10 years in the State prison, resulting in his absence for much of her upbringing. That difficult period shaped who Asya Branch is and gave her strength and a unique perspective on incarceration. During the Mississippi pageant, Asya's platform was empowering children of incarcerated parents. Can you imagine the courage of a young woman taking that on as her platform? It enabled her to reach out to other children, encourage them that their lives do not have to be defined by their circumstances. During her year as Miss Mississippi, she was part of a White House roundtable, where she discussed criminal justice and prison reform, much as we did here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And the First Step Act--she discussed this act with President Trump and Vice President Pence, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant, and lawmakers, including Senator Hyde-Smith and me. She also started the Love Letters Program in which she donated stationery and stamps to inmates, allowing them to write to their loved ones. In her new role as Miss USA, she plans to expand Love Letters to a national level and continue advocating for criminal justice and prison reform. You can see why I am so proud of Asya Branch and so impressed with her accomplishments. She has the honor of holding two State titles and now a national title. This speaks to her unique gifts, accomplishments, courage, and passion for bringing about constructive change to the world. I commend Asya for her example of perseverance. She has made Mississippi proud, and I think she is going to make the United States proud as she moves forward next year to the Miss Universe pageant, where I am sure she will do well. I encourage all Americans to root for her next year, as we will certainly be doing at my house. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote on the Vaden nomination occur at 2:15 p.m. today.

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am joined on the floor by the Senator from North Carolina, and I think a few additional Members will be coming to talk about Thanksgiving Day and about one of the things that we are most thankful for in this Nation, which is the service of our veterans who have stepped forward in uniform to give us the free country that we enjoy today and the freedoms that we enjoy today-- veterans like my 96-year-old father, who was in World War II, who was recognized at the Ole Miss-South Carolina game just Saturday night as one of the surviving World War II veterans. So I want to take a personal moment to recognize my dad and people like him who served so many, many decades ago. They kept us safe and defended our most important freedoms, including the freedom that Americans exercised just this month--the freedom to cast a ballot. I am a veteran myself, and I am a proud veteran. Of course, my accomplishments do not compare with those of my World War II veteran dad's. I am also the proud father of an Air Force major today, Maj. McDaniel Wicker. So being a veteran is a proud tradition in our family. Also, it is a proud recognition that we make as Members of Congress and to take care that the promises we have made are kept to the armed services members who have stepped forward and donned a uniform. That means making sure, during this COVID-19 pandemic, that federally run retirement homes, like the Armed Services Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS, have the resources they need. It means acting boldly to reform the VA, which we have done, actually, on a bipartisan basis, in recent years, with legislation like the VA MISSION Act and the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. These laws have reduced wait times, expanded access to telemedicine and private care, and allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire employees who have engaged in poor performance. As I say that, I might add, when I talk to veterans who have used the services of the VA, so many times, they are complimentary and profusely generous in their praise of the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. For those who don't get the job done and perform poorly, we now have the ability, under this important legislation, to get rid of them and replace them with those who will join the majority of the VA employees in getting the job done. I have also introduced legislation with Senator Kaine to designate September 30 as National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day. It is something on which, again, we have worked in a bipartisan manner down through the Congresses. This month is not only Thanksgiving month and election month, but it is Military Family Appreciation Month. Showing our thankfulness to veterans also includes showing our thankfulness to the families of our military members. So I am pleased to join my colleagues and yield the floor, in just a few moments, to my colleague from North Carolina. Just today, Members of the House and Senate are working on the final paragraphs and the final provisions that remain undecided within the National Defense Authorization Act. This year, it will be named after a retiring colleague of ours, Representative Mac Thornberry, of Texas, who did not seek reelection this year. I can tell you that Members of the Senate and Members of this Republican conference are working hard today to make our National Defense Authorization Act a reality again for the 60th straight year and to serve those veterans and future veterans who have done so much to make our country free. At this point, I yield the floor

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The committee will hold an executive session. committee on energy and natural resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending nominations. committee on indian affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2020, at 10 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' committee on rules and administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18 at 10 a.m., in room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing to consider the following nominations: Shana M. Broussard, of Louisiana, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission; Sean J. Cooksey, of Missouri, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission; and Allen Dickerson, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission. select committee on intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., in room SVC-217 in the U.S. Capitol Building to hold a briefing. subcommittee on public lands, forests, and mining The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on pending legislation. subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management The Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, at 3 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Modernizing Federal Telework: Moving Forward Using the Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, observers of the U.S. Senate might take note that their Senators just passed a host of bills and cleared a host of items from the calendar, representing bipartisan accomplishments on behalf of the leadership of the Senate--Republican leadership and Democratic leadership--a great deal of work by chairs and ranking members of committees and subcommittees, and I salute both sides of the aisle for these accomplishments. In the same vein, we will vote in a few moments on a cloture motion for the judicial nomination of Kristi Haskins Johnson, and I would think that this would be another opportunity for a strong bipartisan vote. We passed two judges last week, as I recall, and both judges were confirmed with strong bipartisan support--strong support and welcome support on both sides of the aisle. And I would think that with regard to this particular nominee--our Mississippi candidate, Kristi Haskins Johnson--she would continue in that vein this afternoon and later on this week when I hope we will be voting to confirm her. It is noteworthy that the Southern District of Mississippi has never had a woman Federal judge, and so Kristi Johnson will break new ground in that regard, and I am particularly delighted that this momentous accomplishment is right upon us. She has had the distinct honor for the last several months of being Mississippi's first solicitor general. So this could turn out to be a groundbreaking year and a barrier-shattering year in more than one way for soon-to-be Judge Johnson. In her current role as solicitor general, she serves as Mississippi's lead advocate for appellate litigation and works closely with the State attorney general in crafting legal strategy for significant legal cases in Mississippi and on a national scale. She has received the highest recommendation that a candidate for U.S. district judge can receive from the American Bar Association, and that is a ``qualified'' rating. As we know, candidates for appeals court judge can get a rating of ``highly qualified.'' The best you can get for district judge is ``qualified,'' so she received the highest rating she could possibly receive and rightly so. She has a unique record of accomplishment as a public servant, a private attorney, a scholar, and a professor. She served over 5 years in the U.S. attorney's office in Jackson. There she prosecuted fraud and financial crimes as part of the Civil Division. Before that, she made her mark in private practice at the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Jackson, MS, focusing there on labor law and employment issues. Kristi Johnson is a native of Hurley, MS, population 985, in Jackson County, MS. She attended school there and then went on to receive her undergraduate degree at the University of Mississippi, graduating in 2003. And then she was admitted to law school at Mississippi College School of Law, where she graduated summa cum laude, second in her class. As a law student, she served not only on the law review but as executive editor of the Mississippi College Law Review and received numerous American jurisprudence awards in areas such as criminal procedure, legal research and writing, and employment discrimination. So excellence all the way through, including the time that she served as a clerk, both as a clerk at the district court level for Judge Sharion Aycock, Mississippi's first female district court judge in the Northern District of Mississippi, and then for appeals court judge, Leslie Southwick in the Fifth Circuit. She takes time to share her skills as a teacher and an adjunct professor at her alma mater of Mississippi College School of Law. Ms. Johnson is a member of the American Inns of Court, the Federal Bar Association, and the Federalist Society. She resides in Brandon, MS. In summary, I am just delighted by the fact that we are going to make some news and hurdle some previously existing barriers with this outstanding nominee. She has the academic, judicial, and personal qualifications necessary for a Federal jurist. I think she is going to make a great judge. People back home in Mississippi believe this also. It is my hope that we can invoke cloture in just a few moments in a strong bipartisan way, leading to the confirmation later on this week of Kristi Haskins Johnson I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in full, complete, and all-inspired support for the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Her qualifications are not in dispute and have been mentioned repeatedly on the floor and in other public forums. I have had a chance as a Member of the Senate to vote on four Associate Justices of the Supreme Court: Kagan, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. I was a Member of the House of Representatives down the hall here during the confirmations of Justices Alito and Roberts, and I was old enough to pay close attention to the confirmations of Justices Breyer and Thomas. I can say to my colleagues today, I have never witnessed a more impressive display of poise, knowledge, and temperament in a candidate for the Supreme Court than I have witnessed during the confirmation process of this particular candidate. I think that is why, perhaps, there was objection to the process. No doubt there was objection to the process in the timing of this nomination and this confirmation among a lot of people around the United States, but as the confirmation wore on and as more and more people came to know Judge Amy Coney Barrett--the student, the parent, the member of her community--and as more and more people have seen her and listened to her, public opinion has moved in her favor to now where a majority of Americans support the elevation and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I certainly am delighted to see that and am not surprised based upon the absolutely phenomenal way she has conducted herself. I think it is worth noting that she is from Middle America. While all of our 50 States are great and all of our law schools undoubtedly have things to recommend them, I kind of like that she grew up in my neighboring State of Louisiana. I kind of like that she graduated with stellar marks from a very impressive college in my neighboring State of Tennessee, at Rhodes College in Memphis, TN, just an hour and a half up the road from where I make my home. I think Harvard is a great law school. I think Yale is a great law school. I think it is OK that we have now a prospective Justice of the Supreme Court who went someplace else: Notre Dame. So, to me, she represents Middle American values, and there is something to be said for that on the highest Court of the land-- Louisiana values, Tennessee values, Indiana values. I think she is an inspiration to young women across this country. I have two daughters. They have become professional successes in their own right. I have five granddaughters. The oldest one is 10. I think Justice Amy Coney Barrett will prove to be an inspiration to these five granddaughters and to my grown daughters also. There is much talk about predicting how this Justice or how any candidate for the circuit court or the district court will rule. I have seen enough examples during my lifetime of surprises that I would not venture to guess how Justice Amy Coney Barrett is going to rule on a particular issue. I do think she is committed to interpreting the law and to applying the law as it is written in the Constitution, as we write it as legislators, and not adjusting the law, manipulating it to suit her rule, but I have no idea how she will rule. I do know this, and this is what makes me so comfortable with elevating her to one of these nine special positions as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I know that she is devoted to the philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia. If Justice Scalia ever made a profound point about our law and our system of the rule of law and our Constitution, it was this: We are a special republic and a special democracy because we have enshrined in our Constitution the separation of powers. The President has his powers to enforce the law. The Congress has the power of the purse, and we write the statutes, and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality and the validity of our actions. Scalia made this point over and over, and it was always such a wonderful experience to hear him lecture. But if he ever made a point, it was this: Any dictator around the world can write down on a piece of paper a bill of rights, and around the country, in dictatorships and totalitarian systems, there are many bills of rights. The way we ensure that Bill of Rights is enforced is that we don't give any one part of our government too much power. We don't give any one man or any one institution or any one Agency in this Federal Government too much power. Those are the checks and balances that Antonin Scalia said made the United States special. I think Amy Coney Barrett understands that, and I think she will enforce that concept and be true to those tenets as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. So I couldn't be more delighted, I couldn't be more enthusiastic, I could not be any more awe-inspired with a candidate for the Supreme Court, and I will, with great honor and privilege, vote in favor of her confirmation.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I have a serious matter to discuss with the Senators about the U.S. relationship with our ally Japan. Japan has been a valued American partner in the Pacific. It is our fourth largest trading partner and a close military ally. Our nations are better off because of the alliance between Japan and the United States, and I hope it grows stronger in the days ahead. I regret that today I must be sharply critical of the Japanese Government. I rise to express concern over Japan's unjust treatment of an American citizen, Greg Kelly. It is a concern that raises questions about whether Americans can be comfortable about Japan's adherence to the basic rule of law. Mr. Kelly has become the latest victim of Japan's criminal justice system. Some have called it a hostage justice system. Even some leaders in Japan have called it a hostage justice system, because it is. It is unfair, harsh, and arbitrary. Japanese prosecutors have an alarming conviction rate of 99 percent, which is clearly designed to produce guilty verdicts. Greg Kelly is a Tennessee resident who joined Nissan in 1988 and became a respected employee. He rose steadily within the company and in June of 2012 became the first American to join Nissan's board. Yet, shortly before Thanksgiving of 2018, his 30-year career at Nissan came to a crashing halt--a troubling halt to his career and to fundamental fairness. A company executive lured him to Tokyo for what was supposed to be an urgent business meeting. Mr. Kelly was 2 weeks away from having badly needed neck surgery and was hesitant to travel internationally, but the Nissan executive assured him he would be home within a week, so Mr. Kelly boarded a Nissan corporate jet to Tokyo. In fact, Greg Kelly had been lied to and was walking into a trap that had been designed by Nissan executives and Japanese authorities. According to emails obtained by Bloomberg News, that Nissan executive was working in collusion with Japanese prosecutors to disrupt a merger between Nissan and the French auto company, Renault. Greg Kelly was involved in negotiating that merger. Their plan required framing him for bogus financial crimes and throwing him under the bus. While he was en route to Tokyo, Nissan executives launched a ``boardroom coup'' to strip Mr. Kelly of his position. Government prosecutors seized his boss, Carlos Ghosn, chairman of the board of Nissan, for allegedly underreporting his income--another bogus charge. Hours later, upon his arrival at the airport, Mr. Kelly was arrested on these trumped-up charges. Mr. Kelly was treated with cruelty by Japanese authorities from day one. He was kept in solitary confinement for 34 days. This American citizen, this resident of the State of Tennessee, was kept in solitary confinement, where he slept on the floor in the dead of winter and had no heat. He was interrogated daily, for several hours at a time, without having the presence of a defense counsel--a basic legal right. This is the treatment given to our American citizen by Japanese authorities. His requests for medical attention were refused. When they did eventually allow him to get surgery, it was too late to do much good, and, predictably, Greg Kelly's physical condition got worse. Thankfully, Mr. Kelly was eventually allowed to live in a Tokyo apartment while he awaited trial. His trial began only this month--more than 650 days after his arrest. With regard to former CEO Carlos Ghosn, in a celebrated escapade, Mr. Ghosn was able to escape from Japan to his native Lebanon after being released on bail, but Greg Kelly remains in Japan to this day and vehemently denies the charges against him. It is noteworthy that the CEO of Nissan, Hiroto Saikawa, was involved in the same negotiations as Mr. Kelly. In other words, if Mr. Kelly is guilty of a financial crime, so is Mr. Saikawa. Yet, instead of being arrested, he was allowed to simply resign. Japanese leaders may deny it, but it looks an awful lot like there is a double standard in Japan's justice system--a lenient standard for native Japanese and a much harder one for Americans. This double standard is not lost on American businesses, and it is not lost on this Senator. Japan should worry about the consequences of its behavior. A perceived legal bias could put a seriously chilling effect on our economic relationship as more Americans think twice about doing business in Japan or doing business with Japan. Mr. Kelly's treatment in the Japanese courtroom has been no less appalling. The trial began a few days ago, and the court allowed prosecutors to give a 6-hour presentation at the opening of the trial, with there being no simultaneous English translation. They denied the same right to Mr. Kelly. He has yet to make his opening statement. Instead of letting Mr. Kelly speak in his own defense, the court then recessed for 2 weeks. The proceedings have been incredibly slow and will continue to be incredibly slow. The trial is expected to last more than a year because Japanese rules allow the prosecutors to meet at the trial for only 6 days per month and also because the court refused to allow simultaneous English translation at the trial. This is a stark reminder of how fortunate we are in this country, under our Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. I have zero confidence that the Japanese criminal justice system will give Mr. Kelly a fair trial. The fix was in for him from the beginning. His being lured to Japan, his wrongful arrest, his deplorable treatment in solitary confinement and in court are a scandal worthy of Vladimir Putin, not our allies in Japan. It should be an embarrassment for any modern democracy. This is a matter that should have been resolved in the board room and by shareholders. This needless ordeal sends an unmistakable message to the American business community: If you do business in Japan, you had better watch your back. When it suits Japanese interests, they could set a trap for you, throw you under the bus, put you in prison, deprive you of your rights to counsel and your rights to return home, and waste years of your life needlessly. That is the message it sends to the American business community. This is a shameful story for an ally of the United States, and it looms as an ominous shadow over the coming Tokyo Olympic Games, the recently completed U.S.-Japan agreement, and future trade negotiations. Our two nations have shared in prosperity for decades because of mutual respect and mutual cooperation. I hope our Japanese friends will show a renewed interest in preserving that relationship, which has been harmed by the Greg Kelly fiasco. The newly installed Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Suga, needs to intervene in this matter. Japan needs to right this wrong and end this highly visible stain on its international reputation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I take to the floor of the Senate this afternoon to call Senators' attention to the worsening crisis in intercountry adoptions. I must say, it saddens me to have to do this because much of the crisis in foreign adoptions--or intercountry adoptions--is happening as a result of policies of our own Federal Government. I am fortunate to have had two loving parents and a loving family. My dad is 96 years old. I visited with him yesterday. My mom, sadly, passed away several years ago. But I was fortunate. I was among the fortunate people on the face of this planet to have two loving parents and a loving family. That is not the case all around the world. Internationally, in particular, there are countless children who have no mom, no dad, no family, no extended family to care for them. They reside in the most deplorable conditions, in orphanages, and as wards of the state. Americans have always been compassionate for these children without a forever family, and that compassion extends to children not only orphaned in the United States but also outside of our borders. For decades, Americans have led the world in welcoming children from around the globe to come to the United States and be part of a forever family. As a result, more than 150,000 children adopted from foreign countries are now growing up in the United States--150,000. These children and their adoptive families are examples of America at its best. I am here to say to my colleagues today that intercountry adoption is in real trouble, and much of the reason that intercountry adoption is in trouble is coming from our own Federal policies, from unelected bureaucrats, particularly at our own Department of State. The number of international children finding an American home has plummeted in recent years. Listen to this statistic. In the year 2004, Americans adopted 23,000 children from foreign countries--23,000. Last year, 2019, that number had fallen below 3,000, an 87-percent drop from 23,000 only 15 years before to 3,000 in 15 short years. Now, people who have been looking into this issue are well aware of what is causing the decline, and one of the reasons is Russia. Because of foreign policy disagreements, Russia has shut its doors to intercountry adoption. We have pleaded with the Russian Government about this, and we have not made much progress. That is one of the factors--not the only factor and not even the principal factor, but that is on the Russian Government. It saddens me that they have done that. The biggest reason for the decline in intercountry adoptions by Americans comes within our own government, our own State Department. For years, the State Department and its adoption accrediting entity have demonstrated a clear and consistent bias against intercountry adoption. It saddens me to say this. It is unbelievable that I have to say this, but career bureaucrats in the State Department have deliberately obstructed the adoption process with new fees, new requirements that amount to redtape, and unrealistic standards on foreign governments. These bureaucrats have placed burdensome regulations on adoption provider agencies. These regulations make it nearly impossible for adoption-providing agencies to maintain accreditation. This has been done by design, and the results are devastating. In the last year and a half, more than 30 adoption-providing agencies have left the intercountry adoption space, and we are losing more agencies every month. The bias of our Federal Government's State Department against intercountry adoptions is unmistakable. In 2018, for example, the Department directly intervened to prevent three well-respected adoption agencies from being reaccredited. A Federal judge dismissed the Department's reasoning as ``quite unconvincing'' and ``simply illogical.'' That is what a Federal judge had to say about the reasoning of this little part of the State Department that seems determined to end foreign adoptions. During that same year, 2018, a journalist quoted a State Department insider who confirmed that the Office of Children's Issues, the OCI, in the State Department is biased against intercountry adoption. Why they would take this position is beyond me. Adoption advocates followed up by requesting Freedom of Information Act documents about this claim by the journalist who quoted the State Department insider, but the Department of State has resisted this Freedom of Information Act request and has still yet to produce any documents 2 years after the statutory FOIA deadline has passed. There are plenty more examples. Last year, the State Department hosted an adoption symposium that may as well have been called the international anti-adoption symposium. This is funded at our State Department by our own taxpayer dollars. Our own tax funds funded a conference that featured radically anti-adoption speakers who openly denounced the practice of international adoptions. It is hard to believe, and it is hard to imagine a worse use of taxpayer dollars. The adoption community has voiced concerns about the State Department's anti-adoption bias, but it seems that government has not listened. I will say that this has been a problem in State Departments headed by Republican Secretaries and by Democratic Secretaries. When adoption providers privately shared their concerns about the accrediting agency, the Department responded by issuing a public letter threatening the future of intercountry adoption. The Office of Children's Issues, OCI, is slamming the door in the faces of thousands of orphans who need a family, and they are saying no to willing American couples who are pleading to give these international children a forever family here in our great country. It seems that OCI's priorities are out of step with their statutory mandate. Also, they are out of step with the values of this country and basic morality. We need to change the policy of the State Department in this regard, I say to my colleagues. I call on my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee to hold an oversight hearing to review the State Department's role in intercountry adoption, to examine the allegations of bias against intercountry adoption, and to hear from accrediting agencies and other stakeholders about their experiences in working with the Department of State and its accrediting entity. I think such a hearing would be revealing, and I think the results would be troubling to Members of the Congress. I also call on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to investigate allegations raised against the U.S. accrediting entity in the State Department's Office of Children's Issues. It is time, actually, to transition the U.S. central authority from the Department of State to a more receptive, more compassionate, and more understanding home, such as the Department of Health and Human Services. This would allow experienced child welfare professionals to oversee intercountry adoptions. We have a great Secretary of State. I have known Mike Pompeo for years. I think he has got all he can preside over, and I don't for a minute think that the Secretary of State understands what this small entity in his State Department is doing. I think he must have no idea that this is going on, but I think the solution is to move this function from the State Department. I would call on the Secretary of State to put a hold on planned changes down in this little agency populated by unelected bureaucrats who are hostile to adoption. I think we should put a hold on planned changes in the accreditation compliance system until there has been a full review of OCI's bias against adoption. The competence of their staff needs to be investigated, and we need to look, we need to give an open assessment, shining the light of day on the impact that this small group of bureaucrats is having on something that I think most Americans support. The American people believe in adoption. They believe in giving orphans anywhere in the world an opportunity to have a forever family. They believe in giving couples here in the United States the opportunity to provide a home for these children who are less fortunate than most of us have been, most of us within the sound of my voice have been. I think the American people believe in a change in this inexplicably anti-American and anti-family policy. Today, I am on the floor of the U.S. Senate to shine a light on this tragedy, on this outrage. I ask my colleagues to remember the teaching of the Psalmist: ``Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.'' I think Americans believe in the sentiments of the Psalmist in that regard. I think we are ready to heed the plight of the fatherless. Let's not neglect our duty in correcting the situation we find ourselves in and, once again, becoming the country that provides welcoming, loving outreach to children to be part of a forever American family. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, for almost 25 years, the internet has grown and thrived under the light-touch regulatory framework established by the Communications Decency Act. I hope we can continue that. I think some changes need to be made. Passed in 1996, the law that the Communications Decency Act is a part of helped create the internet. Section 230 of that law gives broad liability protections to interactive computer services, such as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. This provision protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users. This is a unique protection for online platforms, and not everyone in our country enjoys those protections. For example, newspapers do not enjoy this important protection. But we have done this for internet platforms. At the same time, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows online platforms to censor content that they--the platforms-- consider obscene, lewd, harassing, along with several other categories, including the term ``otherwise objectionable.'' I am concerned that this term, ``otherwise objectionable,'' is too broad and ends up protecting online platforms when they remove content that they simply disagree with or dislike or find distasteful personally. I fear section 230 has enabled big tech companies to censor conservative views and voices, and I am joined by a lot of Americans in that view. As such, this provision has become a loophole for censoring free speech, and it risks negating the values at the very heart of our First Amendment. In the last few years, reports of online censorship of conservative viewpoints have grown more frequent. In early 2018, for example, an undercover report exposed Twitter for systematically ``shadow banning'' conservative profiles--meaning users were blocked from the platform without being notified. More recently, Google threatened to demonetize a conservative news site, The Federalist, for not removing offensive content in their comment section. Based upon information I received, the comments may indeed have been derogatory and unacceptable. But what is noteworthy is that Google's threat toward the Federalist was hyperselective and a bit hypocritical. Google held the Federalist accountable for comments made by the Federalist readers, but Google does not want to be held responsible for the posts or comments by users on Google's platforms, including YouTube--a double standard imposed by Google itself. This selective scrutiny reveals what most Americans already believe: that tech companies are politically biased. According to a 2018 Pew study, 7 out of 10 Americans believed social media companies censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. That was 2 years ago. It has only worsened in the 2 years since then. These concerns come at a time when tech companies wield unprecedented power within our economy and our culture at large, and no one can deny that. A bipartisan chorus of committee members from the other body pointed this out just last week. More and more of our daily business is taking place online, and that trend is only accelerating during the current pandemic. As we near the 2020 election, Americans have serious concerns about whether online platforms will treat campaigns on both sides of the aisle fairly and equally. Those concerns are warranted. I have those concerns. Americans are right to be worried about interference by politically homogenous tech firms that hold unprecedented sway over our Nation's political discourse. After 24 years, it is time for Congress to revisit section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and start with refining--perhaps narrowing-- the scope of what counts as otherwise objectionable content subject to censors. There may be other reforms that would be better, but I think it is time for Congress and the committee that I chair to revisit this section of the law. Last week, the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet convened a hearing to consider exactly this issue, and it was a very good hearing. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to pursue this matter thoroughly and evaluate what changes are needed to section 230. Congress needs to ensure that the internet remains a forum for a ``true diversity of political discourse'' that promotes competition and innovation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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