Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in a few moments, at 12 noon, the Senate will vote on a cloture motion for the nomination of Stephen M. Dickson to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I rise in strong support of that motion. I think it will pass today. I will be supporting the nomination when it comes to a full vote on the floor of the Senate sometime later. As chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, let me report that we recently voted to report Mr. Dickson's nomination favorably out of the committee. I hope the Senate will soon confirm this highly qualified nominee. Steve Dickson was chosen for this important position based on his strong qualifications, which include almost 40 years of combined service in the U.S. Air Force and the commercial air transportation sector. Mr. Dickson is a 1979 distinguished graduate of the Air Force Academy and graduated magna cum laude from Georgia State University College of Law in 1999, where he earned his J.D. He served in the U.S. Air Force as an F-15 fighter pilot, including assignments as a flight commander, instructor pilot, and flight examiner. From 1991 until October of 2018, Mr. Dickson was employed by Delta Air Lines as a pilot and management executive. He retired after rising through the ranks to become Delta's senior vice president of flight operations. On May 15, the committee held a hearing to consider Mr. Dickson's nomination, and he clearly demonstrated the experience and leadership abilities necessary to lead the FAA. I don't know if there was a single member of the committee who failed to be impressed. After Mr. Dickson's hearing, new information came to the committee's attention, which we gave due diligence to looking into. The information involved employees reporting possible safety violations at Mr. Dickson's former employer while he was serving as senior vice president. These matters merited further examination. The committee conducted an extensive review of these allegations, including multiple followup conversations and meetings with Mr. Dickson. We have studied hundreds of pages of legal documents. Here is what we know for a fact about these allegations. We know for a fact--and it is uncontroverted--that Mr. Dickson was not a named party in any of these matters. We also know for a fact that he was not personally alleged to have retaliated against any of his fellow employees who raised the safety concerns. Mr. Dickson's responses to post-hearing questions for the record demonstrate that he has commitments to safety and to the protection of employees who report concerns and that that is paramount, in his view. In fact, Mr. Dickson unequivocally stated in his written responses that he was never named as a party to any judicial, administrative, or regulatory proceedings and was never accused of retaliation of any sort during his tenure at his former employer. I think the FAA, we all agree, should be the gold standard in aviation safety. I think Steve Dickson is the correct person to be confirmed and sit at the helm of the FAA at this crucial time for the agency. The majority of the committee believes that Mr. Dickson is an excellent nominee for this position and will bring the commitment, experience, and expertise necessary to lead the FAA and fulfill its mission. I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote yes on the cloture motion and then to swiftly confirm Mr. Dickson's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota, and I thank all of the people who have arranged for this special recognition.

Mr. WICKER. I am delighted to yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if the Senator from North Dakota was here to speak about Apollo 11 and got here a moment or two before me, I am happy to yield.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it is really hard to believe that the first Moon landing was 50 years ago, but, in fact, 50 years ago today, three Americans were on their way to the Moon--Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. I had the honor of actually meeting with Buzz Aldrin just the other day, shaking his hand, and being able to listen to his perspectives about what has happened in the last 50 years. What a great American. At this moment, I would also honor the names of Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins. While Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin got to step foot on the Moon, Michael Collins' assignment was to stay in the vehicle and orbit solo above. It was not at all guaranteed that his two colleagues would get back. We certainly thought we had the technology; we thought we could do it, and indeed we did, but it was not a given. Michael Collins wrote during that lonely flight while his two colleagues were walking on the face of the Moon: I am . . . absolutely isolated from any known life. I am it. If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two over on the other side of the Moon, and one plus God knows what on this side. Those are the words of American hero Michael Collins. These three men were separated from the rest of humanity, but they certainly were not alone. Hundreds of millions of people watched and prayed and gave them their best wishes. It is hard to believe--and I still have to pinch myself--that I was a freshman in college for this Moon walk, and that was 50 years ago. How could 50 years have passed by so quickly? Men and women have always looked up at the night sky and seen their heroes in the constellations. Now we still look up at the sky, and we see our heroes, but among them are astronauts who go to the stars and return and will go to the Moon and to Mars and return. I want to salute the people who have done it before and the people who are making plans to put a man and woman on the face of the Moon within 5 years. I was so honored to chair a hearing just this morning featuring NASA Administrator Bridenstine, who has put forward a bold proposal from the Trump administration, which has moved the deadline up from 10 years to 5 years. Indeed, I can tell you, it is the goal of NASA and it is the goal of this Member of the U.S. Senate and the committee that I chair to facilitate making this go and actually putting a man and a woman back on the face of the Moon in 5 years and then, beyond that, on Mars. These are ambitious goals, which match and rival the ambition of President Kennedy, who announced this plan in 1961. Credit goes to President Johnson, who took up the cause after the assassination of President Kennedy, and President Nixon, a Republican succeeding two Democrats, who saw it to fruition in 1969. I am proud to salute all of the people--some nameless, faceless people who are not famous--for their role in this magnificent accomplishment. I am proud to say that Mississippians were among the first to answer President Kennedy's call. After all, the Saturn V rocket used for the Apollo Program was tested at Stennis Space Center in Hancock County in Mississippi, where we still do almost all of the rocket testing in the United States of America. As Wernher von Braun, one of the leaders of U.S. early space efforts once said, ``I don't know yet what method we will use to get to the Moon, but I do know that we [will] have to go through Mississippi to get there.'' That was true back in the sixties, and it is true today as we approach the one-fifth mark of the 21st century. We owe so much to the pioneers. Humankind owes so much to the people who answered President Kennedy's charge not only to win the space race--our country against those cosmonauts of the Soviet Union--but also for all of the peaceful results that have come from this. Technologies behind CT scans came from the space program. Intensive care monitoring equipment, which saves lives every day around the globe, came from the scientific discoveries that were accomplished during our race to the Moon. GPS and smart phones all have their origins in Apollo. The commercial space sector is now valued at more than $400 billion, and it is reminding us all of the power of free enterprise to open up new frontiers. Clearly, that $400 billion will grow over the next decade, perhaps to trillions and trillions of dollars. Certainly the writers of Newsweek were correct when they called the Moonshot ``the best return on investment since Leonardo da Vinci bought himself a sketch pad.'' They were exactly right, and this next shot should give us an opportunity also to get our money's worth. We will go back to the Moon; we will go on to Mars. So as we celebrate the 50th anniversary, we look toward the future to all the missions that will come and go, and we remind ourselves of this country's common purpose and potential. The Moon landing was not the end of an age of discovery; it was only the beginning. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I call to the Senators' attention today a disturbing article in the June 29, 2019, issue of The Economist, on pages 36 and 37. It is about the military buildup in China and the way it affects the United States. It says: Xi Jinping wants China's armed forces to be ``world class'' by 2050. He has done more to achieve this than any of his predecessors. I will quote from the lead of this article in The Economist. Over the past decade, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been lavished with money and arms. China's military spending rose by 83 percent in real terms between 2009 and 2018, by far the largest growth spurt in any big country. The splurge has enabled China to deploy precision missiles and anti-satellite weapons that challenge American supremacy in the western Pacific. China's leader, Xi Jinping, says his ``Chinese dream'' includes a ``dream of a strong armed forces''. That, he says, involves ``modernising'' the PLA by 2035 and making it ``world-class''--in other words, America- beating--by mid-century. He has been making a lot of progress. In the second column of this article, it goes on to say: He has done more in the past three years to reform the PLA than any leader since Deng Xiaoping. This quote is not from some advocate of defense spending but is from one of the leading publications, The Economist. I say to my colleagues, we need to be mindful of the threat that is arising to the United States from around the globe--not only from China, as I have just read, but also from Vladimir Putin's Russia, from Iran, and from international terrorism. There is a deteriorating security situation in almost every sector of the globe. The fact that the United States has always been super supreme and able to defend the free peoples of this world is being challenged. We can no longer assume that any war would never be a fair fight. That has been the goal of the United States if we have to go to war. And we want to avoid war. But the best way, in our judgment, as a national strategy down through the decades, to avoid conflict of any kind is to make sure that if America ever gets in a fight, it will not be a fair fight; it will be a fight where we have overwhelming superiority, so no one will dare challenge the sea lanes and the freedom that we stand for in the United States of America. That is being challenged today. I would submit to you that it is a good time for the United States to point out that we passed the National Defense Authorization Act--the NDAA--on a huge bipartisan basis. It was 80-something votes to 8. It is just unbelievable, the way we came together under the leadership of Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed, his Democratic counterpart, working together as professionals, as legislators, and as Americans to send a strong statement that we need to go from the $700 billion that was spent last fiscal year to $750 billion to give our troops the pay raise they need, to recognize the sacrifice they have made, and to give our military--the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--the tools they need, the equipment they need, and the innovation and manufacturing they need to get us where we need to go. We went through a 7- or 8-year period when--we ought to all be ashamed because our fingerprints are all on it, those of us who were in office at the time. The distinguished Presiding Officer was not a Member of the Senate at that time, but those of us who were, we got our fingerprints on it, Republicans and Democrats. Somehow, try though we might, say what we might, we were unable to prevent sequestration from happening--an unthinkable result. The military branches couldn't believe this was happening and couldn't believe Congress would be so irresponsible, but somehow we were. We have righted the ship over the past 2 years. It would be unthinkable to me, my fellow Americans, after making the progress to get back on the right track and return to responsible defense spending and responsible stewardship of our national security, if somehow we heeded some voices we have been hearing in Washington, DC, and around the country during the past few days about a continuing resolution, perhaps--maybe a continuing resolution of an entire year. The thinking there is, well, we just do a continuing resolution, and that will amount to level spending, and we can live with that. I just left a hearing on the confirmation of GEN Mark Milley as the next, I hope, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I asked him about that. Would a continuing resolution simply be level spending, and might we be able to live with that? And he absolutely made the point which we all know if we study the law. It is way more than level spending. It stops innovation. It stops the new starts. It stops everything that we planned in the NDAA, which we passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and it makes it against the law for the shipbuilders to do anything new and for the people working on our next- generation aircraft to do anything new. It stops them in their tracks. It creates uncertainty in every branch of the military. And then we have to pay millions and billions to get back going again. It is an unthinkable result. Surely we can avoid that as Republicans and Democrats. Let me quote now-retired Secretary Mattis. When he was asked about this very subject on a recent occasion, Secretary Mattis said this: I cannot overstate the impact to our troops' morale from all this uncertainty. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our Nation's history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under-resourced military. According to Secretary Mattis, ``Under continuing resolutions, we actually lose ground.'' We need a budget deal. We need a 2-year budget deal, as we have had in the past. Give our defense leaders, the Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, as well as the ones who put on the uniform and agreed, for a career, to put themselves in harm's way--give them the certainty they need in order to defend against the threats The Economist talked about and the threats General Mattis talked about. Give them that certainty. A new CR--a continuing resolution--would prevent us from having that certainty. It would delay maintenance for the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. It would prevent a guided missile frigate program we already authorized from even starting. This would happen September 30 if we go to a continuing resolution. It would cripple research and development, and it would prevent the Pentagon from aligning its funding with upcoming priorities. We need to realize a fact of life around here. I didn't exactly get my way in the election last November. If I had my druthers, the House of Representatives would have remained in Republican hands, with a Republican Speaker and a Republican Chair. The voters, in their wisdom, decided to vote for divided government last November. Our team was elected to continue leadership in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic team was elected to leadership in the House of Representatives. And I can assure you, if I were writing a defense appropriations bill, which is half of discretionary spending, and all of the other appropriations bills, which is so-called nondefense discretionary, it would look far different from the bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposes to write. I can assure you that it would look different and that we would have less domestic spending. But the fact of life is that Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, is the one who guides legislation here in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is the one who guides legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives, and if we get a bill passed, we are going to have to get a compromise bill passed. If anybody within the sound of my voice doesn't realize this, they don't understand government. They don't understand the dynamics that have taken place since Philadelphia in 1776 and Philadelphia again in 1787, where give-and-take had to occur, but we moved things along for the greater good. We can come to an agreement, or we can show ourselves to Vladimir Putin's Russia as unable to govern adequately, and we can show ourselves to Xi Jinping's China as unable to make the tough decisions to protect Americans. We have that choice, and we have a willingness on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle. I was with some of my Democratic and Republican friends from the other body just yesterday. I think there is the willingness there. We are going to have to have an agreement that the administration will sign on to because the President's signature has to be affixed to this. Now is the time--July 11, 2019--to get this decision made, before we leave for August. I would hope we wouldn't leave for August until we get that number agreed to. We come back after Labor Day, and then it is brinksmanship, and then suddenly it is shutdown city, and that is being threatened. Russia knows this, the Iranian leadership knows this, and China knows this. Let's do it now. So I call on the Democratic and Republican leadership in the House, I call on our leadership, and I call on our President to get down to business in the next few days. Let's go ahead and make this decision that we know will eventually have to be made, make a responsible decision and send a message to the rest of the world that we intend to take care of our security. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I hope we will vote later on today to advance the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. Members who have been around here a long time realize what a bipartisan tradition this has been for the Senate. Those listening to us should appreciate that and I think take note of basically a half-a-century tradition of passing this national defense bill on a bipartisan--overwhelmingly bipartisan--basis each year. We don't let a year pass. We have been able to successfully do that for approximately half a century. We will see later on today whether that tradition will continue, and I believe it will. I think we will be able to work something out with the House of Representatives. There are some differences that have emerged over there that we did not have in the Armed Services Committee when we reported overwhelmingly just a few weeks ago. I am very hopeful that we will continue this tradition. I hope we will do so particularly this year to build on the great progress we have made the last couple of years. I think we should admit on both sides of the aisle that we had perhaps let our national security slip a little in terms of a priority over the last several years. We rectified that a couple of years ago. What we have done not only at the authorization level but also at the appropriations level is send a strong signal to our allies around the world that we are back to emphasizing strength and back to emphasizing protection of Americans and American interests but also a signal to those who would wish us ill. We know how dangerous the world is now. I think if any of the 100 of us or those within the sound of my voice were asked the question ``Is the world safer today than it was 2 years ago when we started on this quest to rebuild our defense?'' I think the answer would be no. The world still needs the strength of the United States of America to keep those trade lines open and to maintain the peace to which we have become so accustomed. We will pass this bill, and then we will have the task--and I want everybody to understand this--we will have the task of getting the bills done to actually pay for what we authorize. That is where, quite frankly, I am worried--with some of the talk I hear around town about perhaps negotiations going on between Democrats and Republicans over here, between House and Senate Members, and even in the executive branch--about just not quite getting to a comprehensive appropriations bill this year. Perhaps some people say that we can save a little money on the margin simply by having what we call a continuing resolution--what they call, at the Pentagon, a CR--to just fund the government without directives in the appropriations bill for another year at the same level that we have, both domestically and militarily. We know that of that discretionary budget, 50 percent is national security. Everything else in the Federal Government is called domestic spending, and that is another 50 percent, approximately. I am here to tell you that if you ask the experts who are charged with defending this great United States of America, they will tell you that a continuing resolution is not only a mistake for the United States of America, it is a disaster for national defense. We need to raise this issue and to point out what the people are saying that we rely on. The Pentagon has made progress the last couple of years. We have committed to a 355-ship Navy. We are rebuilding the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and the Coast Guard. I can tell you that a continuing resolution, according to the experts--the uniformed people we put in office to make us safe--would reverse this progress. It would stop new programs, it would curtail production ramp-ups, and it would inhibit the flexibility necessary to make good resource allocations. A weeklong CR would be a mistake. A yearlong CR would be a catastrophe for the defense of the United States of America. With regard to the Navy and Marine Corps, it would delay heavy maintenance for the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. It would prevent the new guided missile frigate program from even starting. We have authorized this. We have already spent money getting ready for it. It would prevent the new guided missile program from beginning. It would cut the planned operations and maintenance budget by nearly $6 billion. It would cut O&M funds that are critical for readiness. It would prevent 18 critical research and development efforts from starting, including large, unmanned surface vessel maritime drones and artificial intelligence development. This would be part of the result of a 1-year continuing resolution. It would prohibit funding for 33 critical military construction projects. A 1-year CR or even a shorter CR would prevent, during its existence, procurement of one Virginia class submarine, one fleet ocean tug, and two landing craft utility vessels to support our marines during this time when the world is more dangerous than it has been in quite a while. With regard to the Air Force, a 1-year CR would constrain Air Force spending at fiscal year 2019 levels, decreasing buying power by $11.8 billion. It would halt 88 new investment programs. It would delay awarding 40 MILCON projects across 18 States and limit the planned 4,400 total force end-strength growth. These are things we already voted for, but a 1-year CR would stop them. You can't do the extra 4,400 end-strength personnel we need. With regard to the Army, it would negatively impact recent readiness gains and hamper modernization. But don't take my word for it. Every chance I have gotten at committee level, we have asked the people in charge how a CR would affect our ability to defend the United States of America. Here is what Gen. Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this year. And he wasn't on some soapbox; he was just answering questions from a Member of the U.S. Senate. He said: ``[Past CRs have] delayed new starts and it's been incredibly inefficient in how we prioritize and allocate resources.'' Former Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan said: ``A Continuing Resolution would hamstring the Department . . . we cannot start new initiatives . . . our funding would be in the wrong accounts . . . and we would lose buying power.'' Is that what we want, rather than do our jobs, rather than do hard negotiations between Democrats and Republicans and the administration and agree on a figure for domestic and national security that we don't love but that gets us where we need to be in terms of defending the country? Gen. David Goldfein, the top Air Force four star in the land, said: ``[A] CR would have a significantly negative impact.'' Is that what we want to have for the Air Force, a significantly negative impact? He said: ``[I]t would put our end strength growth at risk because we would not be able to bring on the additional Airmen we need.'' GEN James McConville, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, said: ``A continuing resolution would be devastating to the United States Army.'' This is not a politician; this is somebody who has given his career-- given his professional adult life to being an officer in the U.S. Army. He said that a continuing resolution ``would be devastating to the United States Army.'' Surely the elected representatives in the House and Senate can heed the words of these patriots and come to an agreement. According to Lt. Gen. David Berger, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development, ``Procurements are going to be delayed. New starts you cannot do.'' These are new starts that we voted for and are expecting that the Department wants to do. If we pass a CR, they will not be able to do a new start. The worst part about it for us is the unpredictability. Jim Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, said: ``Budget uncertainty associated with the continuing resolution adds instability, inefficiency, delays contracting, and delays fielding of critical capabilities.'' We need to stifle any talk either in this building or the Pentagon or down the street at the other end of Pennsylvania about a 1-year continuing resolution as being beneficial to the United States of America. It would have an impact on every single State that does military manufacturing. Those are just a few of the answers that have been given to us by the professionals we put in charge. Let's give our team what they need. Let's pass this bill this week, send it to the House, negotiate the differences that we have at the NDAA level, and patriotically do what we have done now for 58 straight years, but then, when we get back from this Independence Day break with our patriotic citizens and our families, let's get serious about arriving at a compromise number that gets us where we need to be in terms of continuing to make sure we have the resources to protect the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't think the answer to the question is going to be a surprise to my friend from Massachusetts. I will only say this, and I will try to do it briefly. I have been amazed, over the last 1\1/2\ years and even longer, at the intense, overblown rhetoric about this issue of net neutrality and the hyperbole we have heard on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere. About 1\1/2\ years ago, the FCC voted on the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. It went into effect. It repealed what most of us considered a heavyhanded approach based on a law that took effect back in 1934. When the FCC implemented this new restoring internet freedom order back a year and a half ago, I was just astounded by what was being said by my friends on the left. One Senator warned that this was practically the end of Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon. Another cautioned: They want to get rid of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules so that . . . Internet Service Providers can indiscriminately charge more for internet fast lanes, slow down websites, block websites, make it harder and maybe even impossible for inventors, entrepreneurs. One tweet from my friends on the Democratic side said: ``If we don't save net neutrality, you'll get the internet one word at a time.'' That quote got three Pinocchios from even the Washington Post. These things never happened. As a matter of fact, people on the other side of the issue who actually have taken the position of the Senator from Massachusetts have admitted that ISPs are delivering on consumers' expectations. They are not throttling websites. As a matter of fact, here is what has happened since the FCC order went into effect a year and a half ago: Broadband providers large and small have deployed fiber networks to 5.9 million new homes--the largest number ever recorded. More Americans are connected at higher speeds than ever before. Capital expenditures have rebounded from the slump they suffered when the internet was subjected to title II. This should surprise no one because the internet has thrived during Democratic and Republican administrations and during Democratic majorities on the FCC and Republican majorities on the FCC when we have taken the light-touch regulatory approach. The issue seems to be title II regulation of rates. I would simply say to my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle that we can pass a law tomorrow afternoon providing Americans with all the protection they want from blocking, throttling, and preventing paid prioritization. What we will not do and what this President will not sign is legislation authorizing the Federal Government to set internet rates in the old 1934 Bell System of title II regulations. For that reason, I do object.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act. The shorthand name for that is the TRACED Act. I rise in strong and optimistic support of this legislation at this time. I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for working to bring this bill to a vote. Last month, the people of my State of Mississippi received over 50 million robocalls. That is just in the State of Mississippi, with about 3 million citizens. That is more than 17 robocalls for every man, woman, or child in my State--50 million. Imagine what it is around the country. It is billions and billions. Some robocalls are legitimate. When we get a reminder from a doctor's office that our appointment is coming soon or when a school activity is canceled, those are welcome. But many are not. Most are not. Billions and billions of robocalls are scams targeting the most vulnerable members of our society. These abusive robocalls have plagued Americans for years. Studies show that in my part of the country, the Southeastern United States, they are particularly abusive and pervasive, costing consumers billions of dollars each year and costing our economy billions of dollars each year. Many of these illegal robocalls use what is referred to as neighbor spoofing, where robocallers somehow manage to use a local number and a local area code in the hope that recipients will be more likely to pick up the phone. The result is many Americans don't answer those phone calls. They just let it ring and see if there is a message. But Americans also miss important calls because of scammers and because this has been hijacked by the extraordinary networks used by these scammers and illegal violators of the law. The TRACED Act will help. It goes after abusive and illegal robocallers by giving consumers, regulators, and law enforcement tools to fight the people taking advantage of the system. The bill will help the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, to crack down on violators, require phone companies to authenticate calls, and require the FCC to consider when and how to make call-blocking services available to customers. Perhaps the most important part of the TRACED Act is that law enforcement will now join the battle. Under the authority of the U.S. Attorney General, the bill will get law enforcement fully engaged in the fight to prevent and prosecute robocall violations. The American people are ready for this and are demanding this. We can give it to them in just a few moments when we vote on final passage. The bill will task the Attorney General with providing Congress with the next steps we need to take to stay ahead of the pestilence of illegal robocalls. I thank the bipartisan leadership in the Commerce Committee for moving this bill forward and the authors, Senator Thune and Senator Markey, for their leadership on this important issue. I thank my ranking member, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, for her help in getting this important piece of legislation approved by a voice vote out of the Commerce Committee. Also, there is a special thank-you to Senator Schatz and Senator Moran for their amendment to the TRACED Act, which improves the FCC's reporting on robocalls and generally makes the bill better. I predict an overwhelming majority vote for this piece of legislation when it comes up for a vote in just a few moments. My appreciation goes to all of those who have participated. My optimism is that this will soon move to passage in the House of Representatives also. Thank you. I see my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, the sponsor of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate of the 150th anniversary of Sigma Nu Fraternity, a principles-based men's fraternal organization with more than 160 chapters on college campuses in the United States, approximately 12,000 current collegiate members, and more than 250,000 initiates in its history. This year, Sigma Nu celebrates the 150th anniversary of its public founding on January 1, 1869, at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, VA. Cadets James Frank Hopkins, James McIlvaine Riley, and Greenfield Quarles joined together to form Sigma Nu as a brotherhood committed to the principles of love, honor, and truth and in firm opposition to hazing. Sigma Nu Fraternity remains the only men's college fraternity founded in direct opposition to hazing. Its history and its mission to develop ethical leaders for today's society are worthy of the highest esteem. Originally founded as the Legion of Honor, Sigma Nu's central founding value is honor, and the concept that a man's character and conduct should always be governed by a high sense of honor guides all its work. This value is as relevant 150 years later as it was then. For 150 years, members of Sigma Nu have led in their respective communities, professions, and families. From NASA to the Pentagon, from the arts to the sciences, and from business to public service, there are few facets of American life and history in which a Sigma Nu initiate has not made his mark. When this Nation has called upon its citizen-soldiers, Sigma Nu initiates have answered that call. They have fought and died in every major conflict since the Civil War. Its members are veterans of every branch of the Armed Forces, including two Medal of Honor recipients. Sigma Nus have understood the price of freedom and been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for it. The 12,000 collegiate members on campuses across the country today serve their communities in student government, interfraternity councils, athletic teams, and other student organizations. Last year, these young future leaders of our Nation performed over 375,000 hours of community service and raised over $2 million for philanthropic causes. Whether it is through its award-winning ethical leadership development program, LEAD, or through the mentorship of more than 2,000 volunteer advisors, Sigma Nu continues to be at the forefront of developing the minds, hearts, and character of its initiates, inspiring them to excel with the timeless value of honor. Today, in its 150th year, Sigma Nu Fraternity calls upon its initiates to renew that legacy, to reflect on the principles of its founders, and to commit to a strong future for this esteemed brotherhood. As a proud initiate of Sigma Nu Fraternity, I would like to congratulate the fraternity on achieving 150 years of love, honor, and truth and to wish it many more years to come.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, April 1, 2019, at 5:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate of the accomplishments of a fellow Mississippian, Mr. Samuel B. Olden of Yazoo City, on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Mr. Olden is from Yazoo City, the gateway to the Mississippi Delta, where he was born in 1919, to a family of Mississippi planters. Throughout his youth, he read widely in the B.S. Ricks Memorial Library, the oldest privately funded public library in the State, which greatly contributed to his personal development and admission into the University of Mississippi in Oxford. There, he received a B.A. and M.A., reportedly conversed with Nobel Prize winning author William Faulkner, and was ultimately recruited to Washington, DC, to serve at the Department of State. Prior to American involvement in World War II, Mr. Olden was sent abroad as the Vice Consul at our embassy in Quito, Ecuador, from 1941 to 1943. Upon his return, Mr. Olden enlisted in the U.S. Navy, serving from 1943-46 at posts ranging from Shanghai, China, to Paris, France. After the war, Mr. Olden transited the north Atlantic on a Liberty ship. A fellow naval officer noted Mr. Olden's fortitude during this stormy passage. While tending to his ailing father back in Mississippi, he received a letter from Washington asking him to consider defending our Nation's freedom, in a third, essential way. Mr. Olden returned to the District of Columbia, where he was invited to join the newly formed Central Intelligence Group. Commencing in 1947, Mr. Olden spent 2 years in the group's Washington office, followed by 3 years in Vienna, Austria, where he defended freedom and democracy against Communist aggression. Following a decade in public service, Mr. Olden entered the private sector, where he employed his experience abroad for Mobil Oil. From 1952-1957, he was posted in East and West Nigeria, British and French Cameroon, The Congo, Chad, and Gabon. He joined Mobil's government relations department in 1957 and returned to New York. There, he attained Observer status at the United Nations and strode the halls with Adlai Stevenson and Eleanor Roosevelt. Later, he went abroad once more to serve as general manager of Mobil's affiliates in Tunisia, Algeria, Peru, and Spain. By 1974, Mr. Olden was fluent in English, French, German, and Spanish. He had connections around the world. And where did he go? He chose to retire to the finest place that he had ever lived: Yazoo City. There, he owned and operated a cattle ranch for 15 years, while continuing to pursue his passion for the study of history. He was twice a board member and was elected president of the Mississippi Historical Society, served 15 years on the State Committee for the Center for the Study of Southern Culture at the University of Mississippi, and founded the Yazoo Historical Society's remarkable museum, housed in the same Triangle Center building where he had attended elementary school. Even in his 90s, he established and helped to fund the Yazoo Memorial Literary Walkway, which stretches between the Triangle Center and the B.S. Ricks Library. The walkway memorializes more than 100 Yazooan authors that include former U.S. House Minority Leader and U.S. Senator John Sharp Williams, literary critic and editor Henry Herschel Brickell, Governor Haley Reeves Barbour, beloved writers Willie Morris, Teresa Nicholas, Ruth Williams, John Langston, and Caroline Langston Jarboe, and educator Henry Mitchell Brickell. His large collection of pre-Columbian ceramics is now on display in the Mississippi Museum of Art in Jackson and is the focus of Yumi Park's book ``Mirrors of Clay.'' This remarkable man has served his Nation as a diplomat, military officer, and emissary, during wars hot and cold. He served the world in the energy industry as a global businessman of distinction. He returned to his hometown and has continued to serve his State, his university, and his community as a historian, educator, and philanthropist even into the tenth decade of his life. His friends across the Nation and around the world celebrate with him today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, on Sunday, February 24, thousands of people marched in Moscow and in cities across Russia to remember Boris Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and friend of freedom who was gunned down in sight of the Kremlin walls 4 years ago. These people were honoring a Russian patriot who stood for a better future--a man who, after leaving the pinnacle of government, chose a courageous path of service to his country and his fellow Russians. Boris Nemtsov was a man who walked the walk. When others were silent out of fear or complicity, he stood up for a future in which the Russian people need not risk jail or worse for simply wanting a say in how their country is run. Sadly, since Mr. Nemtsov's assassination, the risks of standing up for what is right have grown in Russia. With every passing month, ordinary citizens there become political prisoners for doing what we take for granted here in the United States--associating with a political cause or worshipping God according to the dictates of one's conscience. Last month alone, in a high-profile case, a mother was jailed for the crime of being a political activist in Russia. She was kept from caring for her critically ill daughter until just hours before her daughter died. Jehovah's Witnesses have been sentenced to years behind bars for practicing their faith. Also, a leader of a small anti-corruption organization was beaten to death with metal rods on the outskirts of Moscow. This was all just in February, and it is not even a comprehensive account of the Russian state's using its powers not against real enemies but against its own people--peaceful citizens doing what peaceful citizens do. As for the Nemtsov assassination, 4 years later, justice has yet to be served. It appears that President Putin and his cronies have little interest in uncovering and punishing the masterminds behind Russia's highest profile killing in recent memory. While a few perpetrators who had been linked to the Kremlin-appointed leader of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, were convicted and sent to prison, Mr. Nemtsov's family, friends, and legal team believe the organizers of his murder remain unidentified and at large. I understand that Russia's top investigative official has prevented his subordinates from indicting a close Kadyrov associate, Major Ruslan Geremeyev, as an organizer in the assassination, and the information linking Geremeyev to Mr. Nemtsov's murder was credible enough for a NATO ally to place Geremeyev on its sanctions list. Yet there has still been no indictment. Russian security services continue to forbid the release of footage from cameras at the site of the assassination. Russian legal authorities refuse to classify the assassination of a prominent opposition leader and former First Deputy Prime Minister as a political crime. Despite all of this, they have declared the case solved. Given this pattern of deliberate inaction on the part of Russian authorities, the need for some accountability outside of Russia has grown more urgent. Russia and the United States are participating states in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or the OSCE, and have agreed that matters of justice and human rights are of enough importance to be of legitimate interest to other member states. Respect for these principles inside a country is often a predictor of the country's external behavior. So countries such as ours have a reason to be involved. At the recent meeting of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly, we began a formal inquiry into Mr. Nemtsov's unsolved murder and have appointed a rapporteur to review and report on the circumstances of the Nemtsov assassination as well as on the progress of the Russian investigation. As the chair of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I supported this process from its conception at an event I cohosted last July in Berlin. Yet, as the United States of America, there is more we can do. To that end, I am glad to cosponsor a resolution with my Senate colleagues that calls on our own government to report back to Congress on what we know of the circumstances around Boris Nemtsov's murder. This resolution also calls on the Treasury Department to use tools like the Magnitsky Act to sanction individuals who have been linked to this brutal murder, such as Ruslan Geremeyev. We hear constantly from Russian opposition figures and civic activists that personal sanctions, such as those imposed by the Magnitsky Act, have a deterrent effect. Vladimir Putin has made it abundantly clear that these sanctions, based on personal accountability, are more of a threat to his regime than blunter tools, such as sectoral sanctions, that often feed his propaganda and end up harming the same people we are trying to help in Russia--innocent citizens. To its credit, the Trump administration has done a better job than had the previous administration in its implementing of the new mandates and powers Congress authorized in both the Russia and Global Magnitsky Acts. We are in a much different place than we were when these tools were originally envisaged nearly 10 years ago. The administration is mandated to update the Magnitsky Act's list annually, with there being a deadline in December that sometimes slips into January. Now it is already March, and we have yet to see any new designations under the law that the late Mr. Nemtsov himself called the most pro-Russian law ever adopted in a foreign legislature. While the law has been lauded by Russian democrats, it is rightly despised by those like Vladimir Putin who abuse and steal from the American people. Recall that it was at the Helsinki summit late last summer between the leaders of Russia and the United States of America--perhaps the grandest stage in U.S.-Russian relations in a decade--where Mr. Putin himself requested that his investigators be able to depose U.S. officials most closely associated with passing and implementing the Magnitsky law, as if they were criminals. We need to show the Russian dictator that this sort of bullying will not stand and that we will continue to implement the Magnitsky Act thoroughly and fairly. A year ago, I participated--along with many of my colleagues in the House and Senate--in the unveiling of Boris Nemtsov Plaza in front of the Russian Embassy here in Washington, DC--the first official memorial to Boris Nemtsov anywhere in the world. One day, I hope there will be memorials to Boris Nemtsov all across Russia, but the best tribute to his memory will be a Russia he wanted to see, a just and prosperous Russia, at peace with its neighbors and a partner with the United States. I yield the floor.