Roger Wicker

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. The Senator from West Virginia is absolutely correct. This is a must-pass bill, and I am delighted to join her and the Senator from Tennessee, who spoke before her, in pointing out some of the very positive aspects of this bipartisan bill. Isn't it refreshing that this last piece of legislation that this body will consider before the Independence Day break this weekend is a truly bipartisan tradition that we have had in the Senate and something we can be proud of and should try to replicate on other legislation. I want to take my hat off to Chairman Jim Inhofe, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the ranking Democrat, Jack Reed, for their patriotism, for their cooperation in putting together a product that garnered almost unanimous support in the Armed Services Committee and will undoubtedly pass overwhelmingly, I would say, with 90-plus votes on floor of the U.S. Senate. The NDAA is a critical part of keeping this Nation safe. It is a critical part of giving our service men and women the training, the equipment, and the resources they need. And it is a critical part of building on what has become a 3-year process of restoring some of the confidence and restoring the building from some of the cuts that we have had over time in our military spending. We need to continue expanding our military and making sure that we can meet the threats, and particularly, as a former chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, we need to keep expanding and building on the progress we have made in our Navy to meet the threat from China and to meet the threat from other adversaries we have. Also, I would point out that the NDAA, which is before us for a vote and which we will undoubtedly pass before July 4, will go a long way to steadying the funding we need to respond to the COVID-19 virus. It has affected our economy, but it has also affected our ability to maintain our supply chain and to defend the Nation. I want to thank the Senator from Tennessee for pointing out the plus- ups that we have been able to do in this year's bill and previous bills for Junior ROTC. Junior ROTC is a fantastic way to build character and build ability and education in our high school students. If you take a school that is fortunate enough to have one of these programs, the statistics are absolutely astounding. Students in a school that participates in Junior ROTC consistently statistically have better grades, fewer dropouts, and there is a better graduation rate and there is higher postsecondary participation among the small set of people within a school who participate in Junior ROTC. So I want to thank the bipartisan leadership of our committee for continuing to build and expand this program. I would echo what the Senator from Tennessee said about high schools within her State that have the Junior ROTC Program. I have visited these programs in the State of Mississippi. They work, and they are good. They are not only good for national defense, they are just good for America and for citizenship. I want to particularly mention what this bill before us does with regard to shipbuilding and military aircraft manufacturing and why that is so important. This year's NDAA would restore funding for American ships after a dip we have had to experience because of budget constraints. I would point out that this bill authorizes the money; this bill does not appropriate a single penny. That will be left up to us to take the product from the Appropriations Committee. If we are able to spend the money that is authorized, here is what we are going to end up with by the end of the year: It would fund seven new battle force ships. It would authorize four new amphibious assault ships, which, of course, will be built in our American shipyards, some of them in my home State of Mississippi. It is worth mentioning to my colleagues that we had wonderful news yesterday that the Navy will build an additional destroyer in Pascagoula, MS, and that destroyer will be named after our former colleague, the late Senator Thad Cochran, a Navy veteran himself and a longtime chairman of the Appropriations Committee. These projects would bring our Navy closer to the total of 355 ships, which is part of the requirement we get from our admirals and generals around the world who tell us on an objective basis what we need to keep this Nation safe. They have given us a requirement of 355. If we actually went back to them today and had them reassess that number--and they may be doing that right now--they would probably tell us that number is over 355. What we did when I was chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee was put that requirement of 355 in the statute. It is not a sense-of-the-Senate or a sense-of-the-Congress. We built it into the statute, made it the law of the land, and 355 ships is where we need to be if we want to protect the United States of America. We have had this dip in military manufacturing that affects both ships and aircraft manufacturing, and I would just point out that we are going to need to restore that dip outside of the regular appropriations process. I would commend to my colleagues the possibility of putting the job-creation part of this equation in phase 4 of our COVID-19 response bill, which I think will come before the Senate in the second part of July once we return from the 2-week Fourth of July break. I hope we can come up with a little extra money for ship manufacturing and for aircraft manufacturing. This will get us where we need to be in terms of protecting our Nation, but also it is an unbelievable job creator. Listen to what shipbuilding does for our economy alone. In shipbuilding alone, there are 14,000 supplier companies in all 50 States. Shipbuilding impacts many companies in every single State. The LHA 7 Program, for example, requires 541 suppliers across 39 different States to fully produce that class of ship. So it protects America, and it puts Americans back to work. I think we can spare a few extra billion dollars to restore that dip and put those people back to work as part of our recovery program. With regard to our F-35 Program--aircraft manufacturing--in 2020, this year, there are over 1,800 suppliers working on that aircraft manufacturing program in 48 States and in Puerto Rico. Of those 1,800 companies that are suppliers, over 1,000 of those suppliers are small businesses. The small businesses alone contribute over 40,000 direct and indirect jobs in the United States of America. Overall, the program itself in all 50 States contributes 254,000 direct and indirect American jobs attributed to this program. I would commend this bill to our colleagues and ask for a ``yes'' vote, and we will get a ``yes'' vote, but I would ask us to bear in mind that we are going to have to figure out a way to pay for this, and I think that is going to require a little innovation and a little addition in phase 4 of the COVID response bill. I am happy to say that this additional job creation and manufacturing is supported by the leadership, up to the top level in the Pentagon, up to and including the Secretary of Defense. It is supported by the National Security Advisor and by the entire team around the President. So I think we will be able to have bipartisan support for this. Good work on behalf of the committee in authorizing these programs. There is additional work that needs to be done by us and our friends on the Appropriations Committee in actually getting the money there to restore the dip. It is a good day for America, and it is a good occasion for this Senate that we are able to end this work period with bipartisanship and support for our troops I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, later on this afternoon, the Senate will vote on cloture on the nomination of Judge Cory Wilson to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I rise at this point in strong, enthusiastic support of confirmation for my friend, Judge Cory Wilson. This will be a historic moment for this body and for the administration. A vote to confirm Judge Wilson would make him the 200th judge to be confirmed under President Trump. This is the highest number of judges confirmed at this point in a Presidency since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Judge Wilson is an outstanding nominee to have this distinction. The seat we are voting to fill is actually the last remaining circuit court vacancy at this time, reflecting the remarkable progress we have made in rebuilding the Federal judiciary. Judge Wilson is an outstanding nominee to mark this milestone. His credentials, intellect, and respect for the rule of law are well established. The American Bar Association is considered by many to be the ``gold standard'' for assessing judicial nominees, and the American Bar Association has awarded Judge Wilson its highest rating of ``well qualified'' to serve on the Fifth Circuit. I certainly agree with this assessment by the ABA. In recent weeks, Senators on both sides of the aisle have been able to question Judge Wilson about his judicial philosophy, and I believe he has shown a steadfast commitment to honoring the Constitution and enforcing the laws passed by the Congress as we have written them. Judge Wilson is a native of South Mississippi and currently serves on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, where he decides appellate matters, including civil, commercial, domestic, and criminal appeals. He graduated from my alma mater, the University of Mississippi, with highest honors, and then he went on to Yale Law School, where he distinguished himself in many respects. He served on the Yale Law Journal, was a member of the Yale chapter of the Federalist Society, and was on the Barrister's Union, which is the equivalent of the Yale moot court. He served as a law clerk for the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, having been appointed and having served as a clerk for Judge Cox on the Eleventh Circuit. He was a White House fellow for the Department of Defense, and then he came back to Mississippi. Before becoming a judge, Cory Wilson was an accomplished lawyer in his own right in private practice and served in senior roles in State government in the Mississippi Secretary of State's office and the office of the State Treasury. For 3 years, he also represented Mississippi's 73rd district in the State House of Representatives, where he was vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Judge Wilson is active in civic affairs and his church, Highlands Presbyterian Church. He and his wife Stephanie have one son. He has garnered respect and admiration and endorsements from many of my constituents during the years of service, and in the last few weeks and days, I have been presented with letters of endorsement from people who know him--lawyers he practiced with and people he has been associated with. In particular, I want to draw the attention of Members of the Senate to a letter from retired Judge Robert L. Gibbs of Jackson, MS. Who is Judge Gibbs to write a letter on behalf of Cory Wilson? For one thing, we should know that Judge Gibbs is a Democrat, and he practiced law in Mississippi for a time for Mississippi legal services. He spent 10 years in the office of the Mississippi attorney general, a statewide elected Democratic official, and then Robert Gibbs served as a circuit judge, an elected position in a Mississippi court of general jurisdiction. He served for some 7 years there as a circuit judge in Mississippi. That is who Judge Robert Gibbs is. Here is what Judge Gibbs says about our nominee, the very Cory Wilson whom we will be voting cloture on around 5:30 this afternoon. This is a letter dated June 10. It is to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham and Senator Feinstein. Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: I submit this letter in support of the nomination of Judge Cory T. Wilson for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am former Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court District in Mississippi and have known Cory as an attorney, who practiced before me and as a colleague as we worked on cases together. From these experiences, I can attest that no one works harder in this profession than Judge Wilson. When we were representing clients, Cory would normally prepare the first draft of pleadings and send it to me to review. Seldom were there any reasons to make changes because he utilized his legal abilities to navigate through the complexities of the legal issues which resulted in a well thought out, plausible argument. During Judge Wilson's investiture as a Judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, I had the pleasure of being one of the speakers. This is retired Judge Gibbs saying he had the pleasure of being one of the speakers. I spoke about three traits of Judge Wilson--(1) Respect, (2) Character and (3) Legal Intelligence. To keep this letter to a respectful length, I will not repeat everything I said but the essence is, Cory respects everyone he comes into contact with, he does not change who he is because of race or political affiliations and his ability allow him to break through legal jargon and get to the point. Judge Gibbs goes on to say this: Judge Wilson and I are quite different--I am Black and he is White. I am older and he is younger. I am a Democrat and he was a Republican (before he became a judge). I live in the majority African American City of Jackson, Mississippi and he lives in a suburb of Jackson. Yet these differences have become our strengths. We often have lunch and discuss the pressing issues of the day as friends. He has sought my advice, based on my judicial experience, on how to be a better judge. And while we may disagree on some matters, in the end we realize that we are just two lawyers who want our communities to be better and we know that having a fair judiciary is one of the ways to make that happen. These are the words of an older, retired circuit judge who happens to be an African-American Democrat in endorsement of a younger White Republican nominee whom we will have a chance to vote on in a few moments. We need more members of the younger generation of whatever race who are best friends with an older generation of professionals of another race. We need more people like Judge Robert Gibbs and Judge Cory Wilson who are friends, who sit down, who have lunch together and discuss the law and the ways we can make this country better. I think this is a profound endorsement by someone of a different race, of a different political party, and of a different political philosophy, saying that Judge Cory Wilson is someone we will be proud to vote for. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at this point

Mr. WICKER. Again, let me just stress to my colleagues that Cory Wilson has gained a reputation as a fair and impartial judge and a good and decent man, and I am confident that this reputation will follow him as he serves on the Fifth Circuit. He will serve the circuit and our Nation well as a U.S. circuit judge. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota has said it well, and I just want to come down here today to echo that we have had so many misstatements made by people on the other side of the aisle this afternoon and this evening that I just think it cries out for explanations. Senator Thune is correct. This is a bipartisan bill that we are asking for consideration on, that we are asking that a vote be taken so that we can have the final 30 hours of debate and get to it tomorrow. America is crying out for this. The financial markets are watching this. Our economy is teetering on the brink. We need to get this done. I, too, was in one of the working groups, and we had equal numbers of Democratic and Republican Senators in this working group, with their staffs, with their laptops. And much of what is in the bill was hammered out with the input of Democratic and Republican members of this working group. There were a few issues, yes, that we couldn't resolve, and so we kicked it up to the Democratic leader and the majority leader to be hammered out, perhaps in consultation with the administration. But, far and away, most of this legislation is bipartisan in nature, and it just pains me for, somehow, the accusation to be made that this is nothing but a partisan bill written by the Republican leader. What is this about? The American people need to understand this. This is about getting money to average workers so they can pay their bills and so they can stay employed. It involves enhanced and lengthened unemployment insurance, and it is a provision given to us and designed and conceived by our Democratic friends. We felt it was worth doing, and we put it in the bill. Also, as the distinguished Senator from South Dakota said, there is $350 billion for small businesses to keep workers from ever being unemployed in the first place, to keep them on the job. This could happen as early as this coming week. They would be able to use this money to pay the salaries, and those people would never have to go on unemployment insurance because they can still be on the job. That is what is in this bill. That is what we need to get to a conclusion about and send over to the House of Representatives tomorrow morning. Of course it involves checks from the government, massive checks--a massive amount of checks to middle-income Americans to just give them a little something in their accounts so they can pay the bills in response to this economic downturn that we have had. It involves loans to keep Americans working. This is something that I, in particular, was working on with my Republican colleagues and with Democrats in this working group. The airline business in this country is about to shut down. Passenger rates are single digits. They can't stay afloat with this. It pains me to hear our solution to this problem to keep airline workers working described by my Democratic friends as a bailout. That is what would happen if we were just going to hand over cash to the airlines to keep them afloat, but that is not what we are doing. What we are doing is offering to pay loans--quick loans--to the airlines companies so they can continue to pay their employees and keep them on the job and not put them on the unemployment rolls. These loans would be made at market rates. There would be no loan forgiveness, and they must be paid back--not a grant, not a bailout. It is offensive to me to hear some of my friends, who perhaps have not read the bill and are not as thoroughly versed on its provisions as we who actually wrote the bill are, describe this as a bailout for corporate America. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were some people asking us to make grants to the big airline companies. We rejected that on a bipartisan basis and said: No, these must be loans. Once the airlines get back on their feet and once this coronavirus outbreak has subsided, they will be in good shape again, and they will be able to pay it back--with market interest rates, just like any other business that has to take out a loan. But we have to get this money to them in a hurry. So I object and had to come down here and say that perhaps they are confused, perhaps they haven't read the bill, as I have. But it makes available loans to the airline industry and to other related industries that are critical to national security. If I might, let me read a sentence or two from the bill itself. This is bill language that I am quoting: ``The Secretary may enter into agreements to make loans or loan guarantees to 1 or more eligible businesses.'' The applicant must be a business for which credit is not reasonably available. They can go out and borrow money from banks. This doesn't apply to them. But our airlines are going to need more money than that. This says that they must be paid back ``[T]he loan or loan guarantee is sufficiently secured.'' Again, I am reading from bill language. ``[T]he duration of the loan or loan guarantee is as short as practicable.'' My friend from Illinois--I appreciate the tone that he and my friend from Ohio used in their exchange just a few moments ago. I do think there is a real possibility that minds of good will can come to an agreement tonight. The realities on the ground in our country demand that and cry for it. But again, I must take issue with my friend from Illinois saying that there were no restrictions on the loans that we are giving to the airline industries that we are going to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to give. He mentioned specifically that we need to prohibit stock buybacks. These airline companies are going to get these loans. We need to have a provision in the law that prohibits stock buybacks. As a matter of fact, that is in the bill that we wanted to take up and were unable to get the requisite number of votes for just an hour or so ago. In the bill, we prohibit loans from being used by the company to buy back their stock. Here is bill language: ``(E) except to the extent required under a contractual obligation in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act, the agreement prohibits the eligible business from repurchasing any outstanding equity interests while the loan or loan guarantee is outstanding.'' So no corporate buybacks--we have answered one of the concerns the Democratic whip mentioned in his remarks. None of this money can go to increase executive salaries. It must be repaid, and it must be repaid with interest. Our bill has explicit prohibitions against any loan forgiveness for any of the loans in this entire section. This is hardly a bailout. We are offering a lifeline. Again, this bipartisan language hammered out by Republicans and Democrats offers a lifeline to critical companies that would probably not survive. We do it by providing carefully crafted and restricted loans to protect the taxpayers. Without these loans being available in the very next few days, some of these companies will file bankruptcy. Many thousands of these employees will lose their jobs. We are trying to pass this bill to keep that from happening--128,000 workers in one company; 92,000 workers in another company; 79,000 workers in yet another. I say to my friends: Let's negotiate these last few details and get this done, but don't misrepresent this as a big giveaway to corporate America. This is designed to help average Americans who are suffering and threatened with the loss of their jobs. The majority whip mentioned the appropriations portion of this. Again, this is money that is needed. Americans need to know what is in the discretionary appropriated part of this bill. Let me just tell you, more than 75 percent of it--$186 billion of the total--will go to State and local governments to help them get over the hump in this terrible crisis. I have been contacted by officials from State and local governments, and I told them that this bill has $186 billion to help them get through this crisis. I thought I was going to be able to tell them that this would be enacted in the next day or two. Unfortunately, I was a little overly optimistic on that. There is $186 billion for State and local governments; $75 billion for hospitals--clearly they need it--$20 billion for the Veterans Administration; $11 billion for vaccines, therapeutic, diagnostics, and other preparedness needs. If there are larger needs, come and tell us that, and we will work with people. This is a generous bill--$4.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control, $1.7 billion for the Strategic National Stockpile, $12 billion to assist the military in addressing this coronavirus, $12 million for K-12 education, $6 billion for higher education, $5 billion for FEMA disaster relief funds. There is $10 billion in it for airports--my colleagues have heard from airports--and $20 billion for public transportation. This is an injection of appropriated money to keep this economy going until this virus subsides. It is an injection of loan money through some large businesses and an opportunity, also, for the Federal Reserve within their discretion, under a program that has been established for decades and decades, to loan money not only to big companies but medium-sized companies and small companies under a Federal Reserve program, commonly known as section 13, subparagraph 3. I will say to my colleagues: Before we come down here and make inaccurate statements, read the bill and understand what we are doing. Understand that this is to get money to workers who need to stay on the job. This is a bill to get unemployment benefits to workers who are already off the job and an injection of cash into our economy and a prop-up on a loan basis with interest to be repaid to keep the airlines and related business float. I hope we pass it. I know Americans are hoping and praying for this tonight. Perhaps by the early light of morning, we will have good news on this. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I agree with so much of what the distinguished Democratic leader has just said. I was coming from one building to the other when the distinguished Senator from Iowa was speaking, but I know he was making the point that I would make at this time, too. If the distinguished Democratic leader wants to call this a Marshall Plan for the coronavirus crisis, I will subscribe to it. I think it is that serious. I agree with what the Democratic leader said about this economic crisis. It is something like we have never seen before, and it calls for dramatic action. I think that is what the majority leader, Senator McConnell, has proposed. I agree with this from my friend from New York--that when we try to rescue the large corporations, we need to put workers first and not be concerned about the CEOs and the executives. We need to take care of small business. So let's do a Marshall Plan, and let's do it on a bipartisan basis, as Americans, because this economic crisis knows no party. You know, in some instances, when there is a crisis we are told to carry on, and, in this case, that really isn't what the healthcare professionals have told Americans to do. Americans have been told and people around the world have been told: Stay at home; don't congregate. That is the way our economy operates. So Americans are doing what they have been asked to do. We are not flying. We are not staying in hotels. Occupancy is down to single digits. Restaurants are closed. Stores are closed. Americans are keeping their children home from school. Schools are not opening in most areas. Again, the American people are acting responsibly, according to what they have been told to do by health professionals. The public is taking guidance, and this is having an enormous toll on our economy. We hope the virus will end soon, but we need a rescue package. I am happy to join the distinguished Democratic leader in calling it a Marshall Plan, he would like to. The American people bear no responsibility for this act of nature-- this act of God--that has overtaken much of the globe. So I have come here today just to say that I have been honored to participate in the drafting of what Senator McConnell, the distinguished majority leader, has rolled out today--the Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act. I was part of a task force that the distinguished majority leader asked us to work on. That task force dealt with the airline industry. It consisted of Chairman Shelby and Majority Whip Thune. We were happy to develop a plan that involves $208 billion, giving the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to provide loans and loan guarantees to eligible businesses that are enduring financial hardship, including the domestic airlines, including the domestic cargo carriers, if they can make the case that there is a hardship there. During this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, it is critical that the airlines and other impacted industries have the resources they need to continue operations vital to the transportation of passengers and supplies, including food and medical equipment. The plan that I participated in drafting, which the distinguished majority leader put forward today, would prohibit the Federal funds from being used to increase compensation or provide golden parachutes or that sort of thing for the leaders of these distressed companies. So, again, I subscribe to what Senator Schumer said: Protect the workers. This is no bailout. These are loans that we expect to be paid back when times are flush again. This legislation would take an important step in putting our economy back on track for the American people. A great deal of work has gone into the draft, and much work is going to be required in the future-- tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night, Saturday, and Sunday. We are in the midst of severe economic crisis, and I am determined to work, on a bipartisan basis, with people like my friend who just spoke, and with Senator Cantwell of Washington, my distinguished ranking member. We have penciled in 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. I have already been on the phone with her, and we are going to be dealing with the legislation under the jurisdiction of our committee, the Commerce Committee, and I think we are going to be able to work as we have on so many other issues--as Americans, not as Republicans and Democrats--as teammates rising to the occasion and answering this crisis as Americans have done so many times in the past. So I simply rise today to say: This is a time for us to come together as patriots, as Americans, and take on the task that is before us. I look forward to a hard weekend of work and a product that all Americans can be proud of. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the motion be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1822, the Broadband DATA Act, and in a moment I will make a unanimous consent request with regard to that legislation. This bill will ensure that the FCC has the most accurate broadband coverage maps in the world today to deploy 5G networks. As you know, we were in a race to win that race globally, and I think we can still do it. In December, the Senate unanimously passed this measure, S. 1822, but because the House passed a slightly amended version last week, we need to act again to get this bill across the finish line. We have a digital divide in this country which threatens to leave rural America behind. We have done a lot to address that divide. However, an estimated 20 million Americans still lack access to broadband--Americans like those in Arizona or Mississippi or other States across our heartland. Every year, the FCC spends billions of dollars to promote deployment of broadband across the United States. S. 1822 will result in highly detailed and accurate maps so that the FCC can direct support to areas most in need. This legislation represents extensive negotiation and work on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, for which I congratulate this Senate. My hat is off to our colleagues in the other body and thanks to all the staff who have helped on both sides of the aisle. Madam President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany S. 1822. The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1822) entitled ``An act to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules relating to the collection of data with respect to the availability of broadband services and for other purposes.'', do pass with an amendment. Motion to Concur

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention this afternoon to a pair of bills that are critical to the deployment of broadband access across the United States and the worldwide race to 5G, which we, of course, hope to win and will win. The first of these measures will ensure that telecommunications networks are safe and secure from foreign intrusion. The second bill, which I hope the Senate will take up and pass even today by unanimous consent, would help create highly accurate broadband coverage data that will help expand access to high-speed internet. Both of these measures are Commerce Committee priorities and are the result of extensive negotiations and work on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. Our economic and national security depend on nationwide access to high-speed internet that is safe and secure. The threat of foreign espionage through our broadband infrastructure is real, and it stems directly from the Chinese tech firms, like Huawei and ZTE. These companies are pawns of the Chinese Government. As a matter of fact, for all practical purposes, they are wholly owned entities of the Chinese Government, and they are putting on a full-court press to establish their footprint in wireless networks around the world and right here in the United States. Huawei and ZTE receive massive subsidies each year from the Chinese Government, and it is really beyond dispute that they are doing the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. Some of our allies have come to realize this threat and have taken decisive action. I want to commend Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. They have all banned Huawei technologies from their networks. I am grateful that the Trump administration has shown strong leadership on this issue. Last year, the Department of Commerce placed Huawei on its Entity List, severely limiting its ability to do business with U.S. companies. That was a bold step, but, unfortunately, some of our networks had already been compromised by Huawei by the time the Commerce Department took action. So last week, the Senate took a major step toward removing the Chinese threat by passing the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. This bill, which some refer to as the ``rip and replace'' bill, would rip out the Huawei equipment and replace it with reliable equipment that will not engage in espionage. This legislation will lay the foundation to give strong financial incentives to U.S. firms to strip out their Huawei and ZTE technology and replace it with secure alternatives. It will also help small, rural telecom providers transition away from firms that are controlled by Beijing. That bill is now on the President's desk, awaiting his signature, and it may be that he is going to wait until it can be joined by the Broadband DATA Act, which, again, I say can be passed by this body as early as this evening, when we adjourn. In December, the Senate unanimously passed the measure, but because the House passed a slightly amended version of the bill yesterday, we need to act again today to get this bill across the finish line and on to the White House. The Broadband DATA Act addresses the Federal Communication Commission's flawed maps, which the Presiding Officer and I have been so concerned about. Every year, the FCC spends billions of dollars to promote deployment of broadband across the United States. This funding is especially important for America's rural communication, which so often lags behind in broadband development. We have done a lot to close the digital divide, but an estimated 20 million Americans still lack access to broadband. For years, Members from both parties have noted that the FCC's maps have overstated broadband coverage, thereby understating the problem. For example, for Mississippi, the FCC map claims that we have a 98- percent mobile broadband coverage--something anybody can say from experience is not true. It is far from true. Without accurate maps, the FCC cannot direct support to areas most in need. The Broadband DATA Act will fix this problem by creating a new database of areas in need of service, requiring providers to submit precise data, establishing specific standards for data collection, and allowing crowd sourcing to encourage public participation in the process. As a result, the Broadband DATA Act will also help target Federal funds toward those areas most in need of assistance. These steps will pave the way for more Americans across the heartland to exercise and to access high-speed broadband and to enjoy the economic opportunities that come with that. Coupled with last week's passage of the ``rip and replace'' legislation, Congress has achieved an important victory for our country and national security. In conclusion, I want to recognize the excellent work of my staff on the Commerce Committee, both the majority and the minority. I want to thank my friend and ranking member, Senator Cantwell, as well as Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden of the House of Representatives on the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the members of their staff. Their efforts have gotten us to this point, ready for the President to put a signature on these two very important bills. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, as Black History Month comes to a close in our land, I rise this afternoon to draw attention to the fact that the first African-American U.S. Senator in our Republic's history was Hiram Rhodes Revels of my State of Mississippi. As a matter of fact, 150 years ago this week, history was made in this very room when Hiram Rhodes Revels took the oath of office and broke the color barrier in the U.S. Senate. There was celebration. There was a congratulation on both sides of the aisle, but it was not unanimous. As a matter of fact, eight Senators objected to the seating of Hiram Revels as a U.S. Senator, simply because he was a Black man. Thank goodness it was only eight and that position did not prevail, and Hiram Revels entered the history books of the United States of America as being our first African-American Senator. In a moment, I will ask unanimous consent for the consideration of a resolution commemorating this momentous occasion, some 150 years ago this week. I will not read the entire resolution that I have, but I point out that I have a resolution cosponsored on a very bipartisan basis by 71 of my fellow Senators. Pointing out a few things about the history of this extraordinary public servant, this giant of American history, Hiram Rhodes Revels was born a free African American in 1827 in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC. He was well-educated in a number of States, including North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. Then he entered the ministry, where he served in Maryland and in Missouri and, eventually, of course, coming to the State of Mississippi. By 1868, the Reverend Hiram Rhodes Revels was also Alderman Hiram Rhodes Revels in Natchez, MS, and he went on to a career of public service. Then, the legislature, which made those decisions in that time under our U.S. Constitution, chose Reverend Revels to come to Washington, DC, and serve as a Senator. He served capably. He was well received and well admired, and he brought a degree of conciliation and togetherness to this Senate that we had not had before. He only served a little over a year. He chose, instead, to return to Mississippi to become a college president, continue in education, and continue in the ministry in Mississippi, having served as president of what is now Alcorn State University and also having served in Holly Springs, MS, in what is now Rust College. He was in the ministry in Aberdeen, MS, at the time of his death and is buried in Holly Springs, MS. I very much appreciate the help of Democrats and Republicans in getting this resolution right. There have only been 10 African Americans in the history of our Republic to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of them--the first one--was Hiram Rhodes Revels. Three of them are serving today in the U.S. Senate. I will acknowledge the help that I received from a number of my colleagues in adding information to this resolution to make it better and fuller and more complete. I appreciate the bipartisan cosponsorship of this but also the bipartisan suggestions that I received and incorporated into the resolution to make it better. I am honored to represent the same State that this pioneer represented and began to represent some 150 years ago this week. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senate to proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 508, submitted earlier today.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, tomorrow I will cast my vote against the removal of our duly elected President. I will do so based upon my understanding of the duty conferred upon me by the Constitution of the United States. I do not believe the House managers have proved the allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment, nor do I believe the articles allege conduct that may be used as grounds for removal. I find the President's counsel to be persuasive in this regard. Significantly, much of the American public, without the benefit of learned constitutional instruction, has come to the same conclusion. During the 2\1/2\ weeks of this trial, we have received more than 28,000 pages of documents, we have seen 192 video clips of 13 different witnesses, we had the opportunity to question each side for a total of 16 hours, and we have listened to literally hours and hours of argument. Clearly, I am unable to discuss every aspect of the trial in the time allotted me. Some facts in this case are in dispute, but many are not. Here is what we all know beyond a doubt: First, we know that voices on the left have been calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump since day one--literally day one. The Washington Post on January 20, 2017, published an article titled ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun'' on Inauguration Day. Secondly, we know that the yearslong $32 million Mueller investigation failed to reveal sufficient ammunition for those who desired impeachment. Third, the impeachment of this President in the House was the result of a narrowly partisan vote, with no Republican Representatives--zero-- voting in favor of the articles. And fourth, a guilty verdict this week would not only immediately remove the President from office, but it would also remove his name from the ballot in an election, which is already going on, and the first caucuses of which were conducted only yesterday. The words are right there in articles I and II, on pages 3 and 4 of the resolution: ``disqualification to hold . . . any office.'' The Founders of this country entrusted Congress with the power of impeachment as a check and balance on the executive branch. This power was never intended to settle policy differences or political disagreements--even intense disagreements. It was not designed so that Congress could get rid of a President they found odious or obnoxious or with whom they vehemently disagree. The Constitution gives Congress this extraordinary authority as a remedy only for what it calls ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' And making it clear what an extreme action of impeachment is, the Framers required the support of two-thirds in this Chamber in order to convict. These standards intentionally set a very high bar to prevent abuse of the impeachment process. Meeting these standards requires this process be used to try only the most serious allegations and requires broad consensus in the Senate. Members of both parties have, in the past, warned about the dangers of a narrowly partisan impeachment. As late as last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country. Congressman Nadler, one of the impeachment managers, said in 1998: There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. This wide approach has been supported in the past by House Manager Zoe Lofgren, by Senator and future Vice President Joe Biden, and by our own colleagues, Senator Menendez and Schumer, who feared that impeachment would become a routine tool. These leaders had good company in taking this position. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton warned of the danger that the decision to impeach ``will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Many of our Democratic friends who once sided with Hamilton have apparently changed their minds. They have also reversed themselves on the urgency of doing so--a rather sudden and abrupt change of heart on that question. House advocates of impeachment have argued that President Trump is willing to cheat in the ongoing election and amounting to such an imminent threat to our democracy that he must be removed at once. Unless he is out of office and out quickly, they assert, we cannot have any confidence that the 2020 election results will be trustworthy. I ask: Does any Senator really believe that; that America cannot have a fair election if Donald Trump is in the White House? But that alleged danger was the reason for the abbreviated House procedure. The lead House manager, Congressman Schiff, said in an interview last year that the timing of impeachment was driven by the urgency of removing the President. Congressman Nadler agreed, saying that ``nothing could be more urgent.'' Speaker Pelosi repeated the same argument many times to explain the rushed process in the House and why there was not time to give the President a fair hearing. Senators heard the words repeated and repeated on video clips shown during this trial--``urgent,'' ``urgency.'' What happened to that urgency once the House voted? Did the Speaker then rush the papers to the Senate so we could address this imminent threat? Hardly. Speaker Pelosi held the articles for more than a month. If this trial was so urgent, why not send the articles without delay? Some might conclude that by withholding the articles, the Speaker exposed that she did not, in fact, believe that this case was so urgent. Perhaps it was an effort to influence our procedural decisions. I do not impugn motives here. Our rules prohibit me from doing so. I merely note an obvious change for whatever reason. As I consider the high bar of impeachment tomorrow, I will vote not to convict. I will do so because there is not overwhelming evidence, because no high crimes are shown, because there is not a broad consensus among my countrymen, only articles passed on a narrowly partisan basis, and because removing President Trump on these charges at this time would set a dangerous precedent. I conclude by reminding my colleagues that we are the trustees of the Constitution of 1787. We have the privilege and responsibility of standing on the shoulders of our remarkably perceptive Founders, but we also act as trustees for our Republic on behalf of future generations. With that in mind, we have an enhanced obligation to be careful, to resist the passions of the moment, and to remember that what we do today establishes precedence for decades and centuries to come. Manager Schiff closed his remarks yesterday with an ominous reference to nefarious midnight decisions somehow threatening the freedom or welfare of Americans. His hopeful conclusion was that it is midnight in America, but the Sun will rise tomorrow, a sentiment I happen to share, though my concept of what amounts to a beautiful sunrise may differ from his. Over a century ago, during the depths of World War I, Vachel Lindsay composed ``Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight,'' imagining an agonized, sleepless Lincoln walking the streets of Springfield, dismayed over the carnage in Europe. Let us ask ourselves today, do Hamilton and Madison and Franklin walk these venerable halls at midnight? Do these Founding Fathers traverse the stone corridors of these great building, this symbol of stability and rule of law? If they do, they caution us, as they always have, to be careful, to avoid rash decisions, to resist the urges of partisanship, and to let the Constitution work. I hope my colleagues will heed their counsel. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for Professor Dershowitz on behalf of myself and Senators McSally and Moran.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise today to commend Julius ``Julie'' P. Knapp for his service to our Nation during the past 45 years. Mr. Knapp retires this month from his position as the FCC's Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology, OET, where he helped usher in the modern age of communications and was instrumental in making spectrum available to fuel our Nation's economic growth in this area. If you are accessing a mobile device right now, using Wi-Fi, or buying the latest wireless gadget, you are likely benefiting from Julie Knapp's work. Mr. Knapp is well known and respected here in Congress for his technically precise and straightforward testimony at countless hearings. Mr. Knapp is a world-recognized expert in communications and is widely viewed as a leader on technical policy issues because of his expertise, his pragmatic and fair approach, and his ability to ``translate'' complex engineering issues to policymakers on all sides of an issue. He has briefed generations of congressional staffers on the intricacies of spectrum management and provided significant and substantial input on spectrum legislation. Many Members of this body have discussed communications industry developments with Julie, including low power FM, wireless and satellite issues, 4G LTE, Wi-Fi, and 5G, among others. When the public looks at Julie Knapp's career, we can see a parallel to the timeline of America's communications industry's growth. He graduated from high school in New Hyde, NY, in 1969, and he received his engineering degree from the City College of New York in 1974. Less than a month later, he went right to work for the American people. He rose through the ranks at the FCC, beginning as a 22-year-old certifying radio frequency devices and growing into a seasoned professional in the increasingly important equipment authorization branch. He became Chief of the FCC laboratory, Chief of the Policy and Rules Division for OET, and finally Chief of OET, where he has served with extraordinary distinction since 2006. Mr. Knapp's outstanding work has brought him numerous awards and accolades within the government and in the engineering community. In 2012, he received one of the highest honors for a civil servant, the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award. He also has received the FCC's Gold and Silver Awards and the Eugene C. Bowler Award for exceptional professionalism and dedication to public service. Mr. Knapp has served the United States through multiple administrations, never asking for more than the opportunity to make a difference--and along the way, making a lasting, positive impact. He epitomizes the concept of civil service. We all owe Julie Knapp a debt of gratitude and our sincerest thanks for dedicating his life to building America's communications systems and making these services universally available to all of us and for doing so with grace and humility.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, with regard to the so-called ``Rip and Replace Act'' that would facilitate the United States joining our allies and protecting us, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4998, which was received from the House; 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. WICKER. Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, S. 1822.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Wicker substitute amendment at the desk 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. WICKER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, the Senator, my good friend from Utah, has asked unanimous consent that we pass the version of the bill I authored. Ordinarily, I would very much appreciate that. The problem with his request is that in this Congress, it prevents us from acting today to get to this ZTE and Huawei problem. We have a solution, and we need to get started on it. Let me also make the point that some things are worth paying for, and protecting Americans, protecting our electronic system, our broadband communications from the Chinese-owned Huawei and ZTE is worth paying for. What my unanimous consent request would have done, had the Senator not objected, is we would have passed the bill and leave the issue of how we fund it to another day. Perhaps the appropriators would have decided to appropriate money for it. Had they done so, they would have operated within the budget caps, as the Appropriations Committee has done, and found room, found some offsets, and paid for it that way. The proposal I made, that was objected to by my friend from Utah, would also have left open the possibility of having a pay-for by the sale of some spectrum. I regret that the Senator is objecting based on how we will pay for this very needed expenditure down the road. So I am compelled to object to my good friend's unanimous consent request.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the time is fleeting. The distinguished Republican whip is correct. We had hoped that the robocall bill could be included with unanimous consent with two other very important pieces of legislation--one being the Broadband DATA Act, S. 1822, which is designed to tell the FCC: Go back. Get the maps right. Show us where we have coverage and where we do not have coverage. We are making great progress with that. I do believe we will get that bill passed in just a moment. The other issue is the Huawei data security act. I understand we are going to have some trouble with that. Let me talk briefly before I make my unanimous consent request. China is up to no good with their government-controlled companies, Huawei and ZTE. They are required by Chinese law to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist dictatorship, and that means using their equipment to spy on Americans. This is an undisputed fact, and it is recognized not only by Americans but also by other countries, our allies, which are taking steps to protect themselves. Japan, Australia, New Zealand have already begun the process of removing this dangerous ZTE and Huawei equipment from their networks. We have legislation we thought was going to be included in this three-bill package, H.R. 4998, to authorize this in the United States. Earlier this year, the President signed an Executive order declaring a national emergency--and I agree with the President--because of the dangerous effects of keeping Chinese equipment in our Nation's critical infrastructure. Given these threats, we have an opportunity today to remove this Huawei and ZTE equipment from American telecommunication networks so we can protect Americans. We are going to have some trouble with that on the unanimous consent request. I think with the broadband DATA Act we will not. (Mrs. FISCHER assumed the Chair.)