Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I would simply hope that--and I will not object--we will mean what we say when we limit the time on these votes. We have eight more votes, and if Members will cooperate, we can get finished with that. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. WICKER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, let me join my dear friend and colleague from New Hampshire in paying tribute to so many things about Johnny Isakson. I know we are supposed to abide by the rules, address remarks to the Chair, and not speak to each other, and if I occasionally look over at the senior Senator from Georgia and call him Johnny, I will apologize in advance to the Chair and to the keeper of the rules. I think one of the points that Senator Shaheen was making about the bipartisan barbecue lunch every year is that we ought to do this more often. We choose sides so many times, and for those of us on this side of the aisle, it is three times at lunch every week--Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The senior Senator from New Hampshire and I never have a chance to have lunch together because we are there with our leadership talking about what our folks are going to do. Johnny Isakson decided at least one time a year, when he was in charge of making that decision, that he would invite Republicans and Democrats. Sometimes we got pushback from the leadership of both parties because they didn't have us captive that particular hour, and some of us who tried it didn't do it year after year after year. Johnny Isakson has done that and has been an example of bipartisanship. I hope, Johnny, we are not making you weary of speechmaking, but I did want to make an extra point that perhaps others haven't made and give a quotation that Senator Johnny Isakson has made about others that he would never have made about himself because he is too modest. I first became aware of Johnny Isakson in 1990, and he and I had not met at that point, but I was in Atlanta, GA, for some party function. Johnny Isakson was a successful businessman and a member of the Georgia senate. He was the Republican nominee for Governor that year, and it was pretty well known that he was not going to win that race. But he came before us and gave a rip-roaring talk, very impressive, and I said to myself: You know, he may not win this year, but this Johnny Isakson fellow has a future, and he is going to go places. It turned out that the impression I had that day was correct. He would go on to serve for some time in a bipartisan way in Georgia, and then, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives resigned from office, Johnny Isakson was there to win the special election and became my colleague in the House of Representatives. During that time when we served in the House together, we were on the deputy whip team together. And, Johnny, it was usually you and I sitting next to each other at each of those weekly meetings of the whip team. I began to realize on a personal, day-to-day basis what an outstanding leader he was, what an articulate leader he was, how persuasive he was, and how able he was to actually come up with some accomplishments in the Congress. Boy, it is hard to get a bill passed, and Johnny Isakson has gotten bill after bill after bill passed for our Nation's veterans, of which I am proud to be one--a list as long as my arms. I am proud to be a veteran. I am proud to be the father of an Air Force major and the son of an Army-Air Force veteran from World War II. We all appreciate in our family, down through the generations, the efforts that Johnny has made. He has been so effective because he understands people, because he understands the business about building consensus and using strong relationships and treating each and every one of us on both sides of this center aisle with dignity and respect--the kind of respect that we would hope to be treated with always. Senator Isakson enjoys poetry, as do I, and I have been known to quote a line or two from a poem, but today I want to quote from a poem entitled ``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest. The reason I want to do this is that from time to time, when we have honored people Johnny Isakson admired, he would cite this poem or a verse or two from it as a way of honoring and pointing out the virtues of the person being honored. He would never be so bold as to quote the poem about himself. I submit today for the Record the entire poem, and ask unanimous consent that it be admitted.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will read the first two verses of ``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest. I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear. Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear; And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their creeds, For to see good put in action is what everybody needs. I soon can learn to do it if you'll let me see it done; I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run. And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true, But I'd rather get my lessons by observing what you do; For I might misunderstand you and the high advise you give, But there's no misunderstanding how you act and how you live. Those are first two verses of ``Sermons We See.'' I am so grateful for the sermons I have been able to see as a Member of the House of Representatives, as a fellow colleague of Johnny Isakson's here in the U.S. Senate. He has demonstrated, in the way he has acted, the way we should always act. He has shown us how to be a gentleman and how to be an accomplished gentleman in the way he has lived and the way he has worked across the aisle. How he ends this chapter gives us an opportunity to say thank you for the way he has made the Nation better and the way he has made life better for millions and millions of his fellow Americans. Thank you, Johnny. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I would simply say in response to my good friend from Massachusetts: Where are the fast and slow lanes? They may happen sometimes. We have been warned for 2 years this is going to happen. It hasn't happened. What has happened is the greatest growth in the internet that we have seen, as opposed to the stifled growth we had during the 2 years of title II regulation under the Obama administration. I want to work with them on nondiscrimination online. Everyone wants a fair and open internet, but I think everyone also wants the great growth we have had over the past 2 years, and we can have it with a bipartisan bill like the one Senator Sinema and I are working on and unlike the idea of putting us under depression-era rules. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let me disagree fundamentally with my friends on the other side of the aisle about who is on the right side of history. I would simply offer to my distinguished colleagues and to other Members of the body that we need only to look at what has happened during the past 2 years under the Ajit Pai-Donald Trump FCC and compare it to what happened to the internet under the approach being advocated by my colleagues today. In 2015, President Obama's FCC ordered the imposition of title II regulations to the internet. They called this net neutrality. Basically, what it amounted to was a Big Government, Depression-era set of regulations that gave bureaucrats control over virtually every aspect of the internet. They implemented this in 2015, and investment decreased dramatically during the next 2 years. This was the first time in the history of the internet that broadband investment decreased outside of the time of a recession. It was bad for the internet, bad for the public, and bad for small businesses and startups. I wonder if it is from this that the Save the Internet Act would save us. If they want to save us from innovation and growth, then perhaps the Save the Internet Act would get the job done, for we had no growth during that time and less innovation. Two years ago, the new FCC came in and did away with some of these Big Government, Depression-era regulations that scared off investment, particularly the Depression-era title II regulation, as if the internet were going to be governed like a utility company from the 1930s and 1940s. It did away with them. Since that time--in the 2 years of America's operating under what my friends would end with this legislation--more Americans have been connected to the internet than ever before. We have faster internet speeds than ever before. Now, in States like my home State of Mississippi and all across the great heartland of America, more rural Americans get more internet at faster speeds. We have two choices today--the one from 4 years ago that led to less growth and a recession in the growth of the internet or the one from the past 2 years, whereby we have been better off than ever before. I will agree with my colleagues in one respect. We should have no discrimination online, and we don't have discrimination online today. There are no lanes, as my friends on the other side of the aisle have said. There is no favoritism in what we are doing. We just have prosperity and huge growth in the internet. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to join us in enacting a permanent statute so we don't go back and forth between a regime of Democratic-controlled FCCs and Republican-controlled FCCs, if they would like to help us in that regard, statutorily place nondiscrimination online in the law, free and open internet in the law outside of the regulation of something that we have imposed on another part of our economy half a century ago, then I hope they will join in the bipartisan effort that Senator Sinema and I are participating in-- the Senate Net Neutrality Bipartisan Working Group. I would hope they would want to join us in that regard. We can make the statute better, but I would certainly offer to my colleagues the facts, and the facts are that the past 2 years have been a time of great growth of the internet. The previous 2 years, under depression-era rules, were a time of dramatically decreased investment. For that reason, I do object to the unanimous consent request offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled recess.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on Executive Calendar No. 353, the time following the recess until 4:30 p.m. be reserved for tributes to retiring Senator Isakson; further that the time from 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders or their designees on the nomination, and that at 5 p.m., the Senate vote on cloture on the following nominations in the order listed: Executive Calendar Nos. 478, 381, 459, and 460; that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes on Executive Calendar Nos. 353, 478, 381, 459, and 460 occur at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4. I further ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Duncan nomination be waived and that the cloture votes on Executive Calendar Nos. 479, 489, and 386 occur at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 4, and that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, December 5. I further ask unanimous consent that, with respect to all the votes ordered in this agreement, if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have 6 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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Stephen Hahn, of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services, Richard Giacolone, of Virginia, to be Federal Mediation and Conciliation Director, and Cynthia L. Attwood, of Virginia, and Amanda Wood Laihow, of Maine, both to be a Member of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Intellectual Property The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 3, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon because there is a legislative deadline in front of this body that we dare not miss. Even as I speak, our colleagues in the House Energy and Commerce Committee are considering the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization, or STELAR. For 30 years, STELAR and previous versions of the law have allowed people who live beyond the reach of a broadcast signal to receive broadcast programming nonetheless. Some Senators believe that in 2019, STELAR has outlived its usefulness and want it to expire, but other Senators want to extend some of these provisions--at least in the short term--to prevent consumers from losing these broadcast signals; still others want to use the STELAR reauthorization legislation as a vehicle to implement other reforms. I have introduced new legislation, the Satellite Television Access Reauthorization--or STAR--Act to move this process forward. The existing STELAR statute expires December 31. So absent congressional action before the end of the year, the provisions included in STELAR that enable nearly 870,000 Americans to access broadcasting TV signals will no longer be the law of the land. These Americans who depend on STELAR are mostly in rural parts of this country, like my home State of Mississippi. They include truckers, tailgaters, and RV drivers, and they include Americans living in very remote areas. I say to my colleagues, now is the time for Senators to make their positions clear. Over the course of this year, I have been polling Members to ascertain what this body wants. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I will act according to the majority wishes, but time is running short. Many people point to the fact that the media landscape is changing. There are more options for video content than ever before. New programming is coming out every day that is being streamed through new services. Those are all great things. As I said at a June Commerce Committee hearing, we are living in the golden age of television. The Commerce Committee has been working to close the digital divide between rural and urban America to make sure all families can access those choices and all families can be a part of the golden age, but there are still Americans without Internet access and without broadcast signals. They deserve the ability to view basic television services just like everyone else. Without the reauthorization of STELAR, many Americans will not be able to watch broadcast news or enjoy access to programming that is available for the rest of the country. They will be on the wrong side of the digital divide, and there will be a wide cultural divide, as they would be cut off from the flow of programs and information. If Members of this body are of a mind to move forward with some extension of this statute, we will work with our colleagues in the House. That may include improvements and enhancements to STELAR that address good faith requirements, level the playing field in the marketplace, promote access to programming, and ensure robust competition, but we don't have much time. After this week, Senators will go home for Thanksgiving. Many of those across the country who benefit from STELAR in our States will watch football games and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, thanks to the STELAR law. They will enjoy time with their families, and I look forward to doing the same, but when Congress returns, there will be just 2 weeks--10 legislative days--to finalize any legislation and send it to the President for his signature. In this body, taking no action is easy. It comes naturally. But in this case, no action equals the repeal of the STELAR law in its entirety, and Members should know that. They have 10 days to ensure 870,000 Americans will be able to watch the same programs next year that they are seeing this year, or we can let STELAR expire and take the risk of letting the chips fall where they may. To repeat, my colleagues should be advised they need to make a voice that is heard on whether the STELAR legislation needs to be extended or expire. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am wearing a pin on my right lapel that was presented to me by some folks today who appreciate veterans, and I appreciate being recognized. I am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserve. I retired from that organization, and I appreciate their coming to put an extra pin on me today. We will celebrate Veterans Day on November 11, and I will be making speeches. Hopefully, many of us will be properly recognizing those of us who have worn the uniform and taken the oath and are serving in that respect. Today I want to talk about another group of folks, and those are the future veterans. By that, of course, I mean the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and servicemembers who are serving their country now on Active Duty. I make a plea to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, at both ends of this building, to get our work done at least for national security. We are at a time of heightened politics. There are tensions in this building as there often have been, but at this critical juncture, with so much at stake around the world, it seems to me we ought to be able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, of which the distinguished chairman, Chairman Inhofe, and his ranking member, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, have prepared and are ready to go on. It seems we ought to be able to come to an agreement with the other body and get that to the President for his signature. We are now 5 weeks into the current fiscal year, and we don't have an appropriations bill done for the Department of Defense. We have to have the authorization act, which I mentioned, but at the beginning of October, we are supposed to have the government funded, and we don't. We are under a continuing resolution, a CR, and it sounds so harmless, like we are just continuing the funding until we get all the numbers right. That is not true. Every defense expert in the government--formally in the government and outside of the government-- will tell you that a continuing resolution is harmful to our Nation's defense. It not only sends the wrong signal, it has us sending money in the wrong direction and has us not spending money where we need to spend it. At the end of this month, when the current CR ends, we need to be ready with a permanent appropriations bill for the Department of Defense for this current fiscal year. Just think of what we are looking at right now. Iran is the largest State sponsor of terror, and it is on the warpath. Iran knocked out the world's largest oil facility in Saudi Arabia just a couple of months ago and is attacking tankers in the gulf. This is no time to not have a permanent appropriations bill for this fiscal year. Vladimir Putin's Russia is in a shooting war against our partners in Ukraine. The Communist Government of China is brutalizing its own people on the streets of Hong Kong violating the ``one nation, two systems'' policy. That is not the half of it. The Chinese dictator, Xi Jinping, is not keeping his repressive ambitions at home as we know from what is going on in the Pacific. As my friend, the chairman of the full Armed Services Committee, pointed out, the People's Republic of China has increased military spending by 83 percent. China has increased military spending by 83 percent over the last decade at a time when we can't even agree on the funding for the current fiscal year we are in. That sends a signal around the world. You best believe Xi Jinping knows we can't get our act together through a funding bill. Now my hat is off to the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, in this body who have done their job and are ready to go forward with the funding bill, but we need to join hands and actually get it done. For some reason, we have not been able to do that. I am begging my colleagues, let's fund our military, and let's fund these future veterans who are serving on Active Duty right now. The current continuing resolution is doing real damage to our national security. It is harming the progress we have already made to rebuild our military since the sequester--and wasn't that a disaster. It is harming our military men and women and making it harder for them to do their jobs going forward. I want to quote General Mattis, former Secretary Mattis, who said this, as Secretary, about continuing resolutions: It's not like we even maintain the status quo if we go into one of these situations yet again. We actually lose ground. I urge my fellow colleagues in the Senate and in the other body to heed the words of this great military leader. We are losing ground today, November 6, 2019, because we are under a CR. We have seen it before, and unfortunately we are losing money and losing readiness right now. Extending the CR any further will harm military personnel in every branch. The Air Force is short 2,100 pilots. Keeping the CR going would cut $123 million from undergraduate pilot training. Under a continuation of the CR further than the end of this month, naval training will be scaled back dramatically. We will not be able to fix dangerous housing that we have had hearings about and there has been a scandal about in the press. We will not be able to attend to that because we are working under a continuation of last year's old- fashioned numbers. Vital research and development programs will go unbegun. Not only that, keeping a CR going not only doesn't save money, it actually costs us money because we are spending dollars on programs we have decided not to be involved in anymore. We want to move in a different direction. The House and Senate leaders have decided to do that, the Members of the Pentagon have decided to do that, but under the CR we are forced to keep spending money on programs we don't need anymore. According to General Martin, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, delays and misallocated funds cost $7 billion every month, and that is just for the Army. We have an opportunity to correct this, or we have an opportunity to waste another $20 billion on a yearlong CR. I am urging the American public to make it known to those of us at Veterans Day programs this weekend and next week. I am urging my colleagues to stress this when they talk to the public. There are appropriations bills that are not yet worked out, but for heaven's sake, let's at least do the bill that pays the troops and sends a signal to the rest of the world in these trying times that we are at least going to fund our Defense Department and our future veterans who are on Active Duty and who have taken the oath today and that we will do them in a modern and timely fashion. We are 5 weeks late. Let's not make it another 5 weeks after this and another 5 months after that. Pass a full-funding appropriations bill for our troops, for the Department of Defense, and give them the type of representation and government that they deserve based upon their worthy service. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each vote in this series and that all votes after the first be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will speak for only a few moments, and then the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska will close this part of the debate. The senior Senator from Alaska mentioned that only 38 of us have actually served with Senator Ted Stevens. Of that group, I am the junior-most in rank, and I know that because I was the junior-most Member of this body more than a decade ago when I rose on this floor to pay tribute to this great Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, on his last day in office. I did not speak from my desk, as you can imagine. I didn't have a very prominent desk at the time. I chose instead to stand as close as I could directly behind Senator Stevens. I suppose I wanted to have his back, at least figuratively, for one last time. And I wanted to make sure I could see his wife Catherine in the gallery, as I may have done just a few moments ago, because she meant so much and still means so much to all of us and to my wife Gayle and me. What we learned from Ted Stevens guides our work today. I was honored to serve alongside him for just a few years. I was anguished when he had to leave us in 2008, and together with all of us, I mourned his death in 2010. Seniority is earned when the people of our States see fit to return us time and again to Washington to do their business. Respect is earned when we engage in the long fight to fulfill our oaths and to support and defend the Constitution. Ted Stevens earned both seniority and respect for 40 years. When he was elected as the third Senator ever from the Land of the Midnight Sun, he had already served his country brilliantly, as has been mentioned, as a brave pilot in World War II for the Flying Tigers and as a key leader in putting that 49th star on the American flag. The portrait being unveiled in the Old Senate Chamber today, where so many great debates took place, is a fitting homage to Ted Stevens. As the senior Senator has mentioned, the seemingly gruff exterior depicted was a facade over one of the most genuine and patriotic people ever to walk these halls. He went to work every day to defend Americans and to make good on the promise of the country he so deeply loved. He belongs in the place of honor where his portrait will be displayed. Members who served with Ted Stevens will look on that portrait and remember that. I hope our more recent colleagues who have joined since Ted Stevens left will come to know what a giant he was. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, a committee Ted Stevens once led, I went to Alaska with the junior Senator from Alaska this summer to learn, among other things, from coastguardsmen keeping our Nation safe in the Far North. But I saw a lot of that State, and there is a lot to see. Despite its geographic size, Alaska is in many respects a small town. Like my home State of Mississippi, everyone knows just about everyone else, and virtually every Alaskan knew Ted Stevens. They knew what he did for them. They knew what he did for this country. I could see his legacy this summer. The evidence of his leadership is everywhere in so many ways. He helped turn America's last frontier into a thriving community for Alaskans and Americans and a place of wonder and adventure for any of us who will visit there. While he was at it, he performed small acts of kindness that I will never forget and heroic acts of statesmanship almost every day in his chosen homes--this closed Chamber and that wide open State. I can't wait to see the portrait. I can't wait to tell him hello and, once again, to look him right in the eye. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we have been talking about the USMCA and the Senator from Ohio crammed into just a few moments quite a bit of facts. We are late in time, so I am going to try to abbreviate my remarks. The Senator from Ohio taught me something a few years ago that is an undisputed fact: We sell twice as many goods to countries where we have trade agreements than we do with countries where we don't. This is an opportunity to expand on an already great success story in terms of our trade with Canada. What do we see now in trade with Canada and Mexico? We see 12 million American jobs, more than $500 billion worth of exports, and the USMCA would enhance and improve that. It is good for large manufacturing. It is good for small manufacturing. It is good for small business. The tech industry benefits from the USMCA. As the Senator of Tennessee pointed out, the creative industry--those people in Nashville and in Hollywood--will benefit also, in terms of our ability to protect our intellectual property. Farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness will all benefit. We strengthen our position with regard to China. This is not an agreement with China, but we will be in a stronger position to compete with China because of this. I urge the Speaker of the House of Representatives to bring this to a vote in the other body. There is one person on the face of the Earth who can bring this bill, and that is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She needs to do it, and if she does, we will see a rare opportunity for bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress. The House, controlled by Democrats, will pass the USMCA because they know it is good for jobs and they know it is good for families and working people. The Senate will pass it on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, and that ought to be refreshing. I want to do something that I seldom do. I am going to quote the Washington Post. I don't get a chance to do that very often. The Washington Post has strongly endorsed USMCA. The editorial board wrote recently: ``USMCA would be a real improvement over the status quo,'' and it went on to urge Democrats, including many who have already said they support the agreement, to bring the USMCA up without delay. This is an opportunity for us to move this economy forward. This is an opportunity for us to join with Canada and Mexico, which have already indicated their support for this treaty, and an opportunity for bipartisanship, which needs to break out more in this building. So I join my colleagues. I am glad to rise with them in support of urging the Speaker to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge quick adoption in the House and Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I congratulate the junior Senator from Mississippi, Mrs. Hyde-Smith. I thank her for her leadership. She took the lead on this legislation, and I am delighted and honored to join her in this regard. If Americans could take a moment, a few hours, to come to the South Delta of Mississippi and see for themselves what Senator Hyde-Smith is talking about, they would understand the gravity of this situation. She mentioned 7 months. If you are there today, you see dead wildlife floating on the floodwaters. You see coffins that had been buried that are floating on the surface of the floodwater in this area. There is no prospect of an income this year on these small farms and no prospect of a crop this year from some of the most fertile land the United States has been blessed with. The tragedy of this is that it is entirely preventable. The prevention involves a promise that was made, as the Senator from Mississippi said, back in 1941 when this country and this Congress collectively adopted the Mississippi River and Tributaries System. That system included, up and down the river, a series of levees and flood- control structures. It also included a series of pumps. We are the only State that still, after this entire time, doesn't have our pump that has been promised to us. There have been environmental challenges along the way-- unsubstantiated, I might add. As a matter of fact, the environment is harmed, wildlife is harmed when a flood of this magnitude comes into the area, as graphically demonstrated by some of the photographs the Senator has offered. She mentioned the bathtub effect. Let me make sure my colleagues understand this. When the Mississippi floods, the Yazoo River backs up into the delta. As a result, we put down a floodgate, and that is designed to keep the flooded Yazoo River from backing up into this fertile farmland. We had made a promise--or at least we thought we had a promise--to people with property 87 feet above sea level that when the floodwater behind the floodgate reaches 87, we would start pumping and pump that water back into the Mississippi River, where it has a minimal effect. This gives certainty. We know there is going to be a flood. People with property 87 feet above sea level and below know they are going to be flooded. But the promise of the pump is that if you have land that is above 87 feet, you can build a house there, you can put your business there, you can plant your crop there, and you can be certain that you will get the same protection from flooding as everybody else up and down the Mississippi River Tributary System gets. That is the promise that everybody else gets but has been foreclosed to us. So I congratulate the Senator for thinking of this solution. That is a piece of legislation that would correct this problem. Clearly, it would also help if we simply got the Corps and the EPA to agree that the decision 10 years or so ago was made incorrectly and let us have what the rest of the system has; that is, a flood-control promise that gives us certainty that we can conduct our business, have a home, and conduct our lives as it was promised. That is all we are asking for. For 7 months this year and for weeks and months in previous years, we have been denied that. I want to congratulate the Senator and associate myself with the remarks of the junior Senator from Mississippi and thank her for her leadership in thinking of this particular solution, which would give us a remedy, but also say that there are other ways this could be solved. We deserve the certainty that everyone else up and down the Mississippi system now has, and we deserve to have that promise made to us back in the 1940s fulfilled even at this late date.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I congratulate the junior Senator from Mississippi, Mrs. Hyde-Smith. I thank her for her leadership. She took the lead on this legislation, and I am delighted and honored to join her in this regard. If Americans could take a moment, a few hours, to come to the South Delta of Mississippi and see for themselves what Senator Hyde-Smith is talking about, they would understand the gravity of this situation. She mentioned 7 months. If you are there today, you see dead wildlife floating on the floodwaters. You see coffins that had been buried that are floating on the surface of the floodwater in this area. There is no prospect of an income this year on these small farms and no prospect of a crop this year from some of the most fertile land the United States has been blessed with. The tragedy of this is that it is entirely preventable. The prevention involves a promise that was made, as the Senator from Mississippi said, back in 1941 when this country and this Congress collectively adopted the Mississippi River and Tributaries System. That system included, up and down the river, a series of levees and flood- control structures. It also included a series of pumps. We are the only State that still, after this entire time, doesn't have our pump that has been promised to us. There have been environmental challenges along the way-- unsubstantiated, I might add. As a matter of fact, the environment is harmed, wildlife is harmed when a flood of this magnitude comes into the area, as graphically demonstrated by some of the photographs the Senator has offered. She mentioned the bathtub effect. Let me make sure my colleagues understand this. When the Mississippi floods, the Yazoo River backs up into the delta. As a result, we put down a floodgate, and that is designed to keep the flooded Yazoo River from backing up into this fertile farmland. We had made a promise--or at least we thought we had a promise--to people with property 87 feet above sea level that when the floodwater behind the floodgate reaches 87, we would start pumping and pump that water back into the Mississippi River, where it has a minimal effect. This gives certainty. We know there is going to be a flood. People with property 87 feet above sea level and below know they are going to be flooded. But the promise of the pump is that if you have land that is above 87 feet, you can build a house there, you can put your business there, you can plant your crop there, and you can be certain that you will get the same protection from flooding as everybody else up and down the Mississippi River Tributary System gets. That is the promise that everybody else gets but has been foreclosed to us. So I congratulate the Senator for thinking of this solution. That is a piece of legislation that would correct this problem. Clearly, it would also help if we simply got the Corps and the EPA to agree that the decision 10 years or so ago was made incorrectly and let us have what the rest of the system has; that is, a flood-control promise that gives us certainty that we can conduct our business, have a home, and conduct our lives as it was promised. That is all we are asking for. For 7 months this year and for weeks and months in previous years, we have been denied that. I want to congratulate the Senator and associate myself with the remarks of the junior Senator from Mississippi and thank her for her leadership in thinking of this particular solution, which would give us a remedy, but also say that there are other ways this could be solved. We deserve the certainty that everyone else up and down the Mississippi system now has, and we deserve to have that promise made to us back in the 1940s fulfilled even at this late date.

Mr. WICKER

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