Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to point out that the Federal Communications Commission is voting today, perhaps this morning, to begin the process to roll back a regulatory framework that should never have been imposed on broadband service providers in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I am glad the FCC is working to restore the ``light touch'' regulatory framework that has allowed the internet to thrive since its creation. This action sets the stage for Congress to then put a legislative solution in place that strikes the right balance between providing regulatory oversight on the one hand and giving the broadband industry the flexibility it needs to innovate and expand on the other hand. We should not rely on a classification that was devised during the depression era. There should be 21st-century rules for 21st-century technology. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees internet issues, I look forward to the task ahead. Keeping the internet free and open is a goal shared by most of us and by many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. A bipartisan solution can help provide long-term certainty for both consumers and broadband providers. This certainty will be essential to our efforts to close the digital divide and remove barriers to internet connectivity that exist in Mississippi and around the United States. The online experience we enjoy today and the revolutionary advances of the internet over the past quarter century did not happen because of the heavy hand of the Federal Government. These advances happened because the Federal Government stayed out of the way, supporting a ``light touch'' regulatory framework where innovation, competition, and investment could truly survive and thrive. This was the framework that existed under both Republican and Democratic administrations until 2015, when politics got in the way. With a party-line vote, the FCC that year decided to adopt a utility- style framework, as I said, resulting from legislation devised during the depression. It classified broadband service as a common carrier under title II of the Communications Act of 1934. A utility-style framework for telephones may have worked during the Bell telephone monopoly of the depression era, but that does not mean it is a right fit now. Nor does it mean we should adopt a completely hands off regulatory approach, which I would also oppose. The goal of net neutrality, which is designed to prevent internet providers from prioritizing some legal content over others has not gone away. But we know that handing over broad control of the internet to Washington is also not the answer. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has outlined some of the reasons for this, including the impact of title II regulations on big and small internet service providers. If we do not give providers the confidence to invest in better services and better infrastructure, it could limit consumers' options and services. This could also affect our efforts to close the digital divide, to bring the digital world to our rural communities in Alabama and Mississippi. Underserved communities could remain underserved. Without broadband access, these communities could lose out on critical jobs, economic development, and many other opportunities borne out of the thriving internet economy. At the end of the day, we need to be asking: What do Americans want and what do Americans need? They need broadband that is accessible, affordable, fast, and reliable. They want to be able to choose the services and content that best meets their needs. These are the priorities that need to be kept in mind as the FCC works today and as lawmakers work to strike a balance between regulatory oversight and free market productivity. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to express my concerns about the outcome of the April 16 constitutional referendum in Turkey, when more than 50 million Turkish citizens voted on constitutional amendments to convert Turkey's parliamentary government into a Presidential system. Turkey is a longstanding friend of the United States and a NATO ally. Our bilateral partnership dates back to the Cold War when Turkey served as an important bulwark against the creeping influence of the Soviet Union. Time has not diminished Turkey's geostrategic importance. Today Ankara finds itself at the intersection of several critical challenges: the instability in Syria and Iraq, the threat of ISIS and other extremist groups, and the refugee crisis spawned by this regional upheaval. The United States relies on Turkey and other regional partners to help coordinate and strengthen our collective response. I was deeply troubled when renegade military units attempted to overthrow Turkey's democratically elected government last July. Turkey's strength is rooted in the democratic legitimacy of its government--a pillar of stability targeted by the reckless and criminal coup attempt. As chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or U.S. Helsinki Commission, I take very seriously the political commitments made by the 57 participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. These commitments, held by both the United States and Turkey, represent the foundation of security and cooperation in the OSCE region. They include an indispensable focus on human rights, rule of law, and democratic institutions. In the OSCE's founding document, the Helsinki Final Act, participating states affirm ``the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms'' and consider respect for these to be an ``essential factor'' for international peace and security. This vision is consistent with long-established U.S. foreign policy promoting human rights and democracy as cornerstones of a safer, more stable international order. With these principles in mind, the United States must pay urgent attention to the current situation in Turkey and the danger it poses to Turkish and regional stability. Eroding respect for fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and democratic institutions in Turkey has proceeded at an alarming pace. The government's planned ``executive presidency'' will further decrease government accountability. Since the attempted coup more than 9 months ago, Turkey has operated under a state of emergency that gives the government sweeping authority to curtail rights and silence opponents. Certain extraordinary measures may have been justified in the immediate aftermath to restore order, investigate events, and bring perpetrators to justice, but the government's actions have stretched far beyond these legitimate aims. The ongoing purge has touched every institution of government, sector of society, corner of the country, and shade of opposition--military or civilian, Turk or Kurd, religious or secular, nationalist or leftist, political or nonpolitical. An atmosphere of fear and uncertainty has settled over Turkish society as more than 100,000 people have been detained or arrested. Tens of thousands have been fired from their jobs, had their professional licenses revoked, and had their names released on public lists without any recognizable due process. The government removed and replaced thousands of judges and prosecutors within hours of the coup's defeat, compromising the independence of the judiciary at a moment when an impartial justice system had become more important than ever. The government has also closed more than 150 media outlets. Upwards of 80 journalists are behind bars. The offices of the country's oldest newspaper were raided, and the paper's editor-in-chief and other staff were arrested. The media environment was already under extraordinary pressure before the coup. Last spring, the government seized control of the country's highest circulation paper. Self-censorship is now widely practiced to avoid provoking the government's ire. Additionally, state of emergency decrees have given regional governors the ability to curtail freedom of assembly rights, harming the ability of civil society organizations to organize rallies concerning the referendum. Since July, the government has detained more than a dozen opposition parliamentarians. Many more continue to face criminal charges for political statements they made before the coup attempt. It is difficult to overstate the chilling effect these measures have had on political debate in Turkey; yet these are the circumstances under which Turks voted on April 16. These major constitutional changes passed with a slim majority of 51 percent. The OSCE's international observation mission stated in its preliminary conclusions that the vote ``took place on an unlevel playing field'' and that ``fundamental freedoms essential to a genuinely democratic process were curtailed.'' Under the revised constitution, the once largely ceremonial position of President will convert into an ``executive presidency'' and the position of Prime Minister will be abolished. The President will be elected along with the national assembly every 5 years and has the ability to dissolve the assembly and call new elections at will. The President will also appoint a larger proportion--nearly half--of the country's supreme judicial council. In a report on these new constitutional provisions, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe concluded that the amendments are a ``step backwards'' and pose ``dangers of degeneration . . . towards an authoritarian and personal regime.'' Turkey is undergoing a disturbing transformation, and I am concerned these changes could undermine the strength of our partnership. President Erdogan's government has dramatically repressed dissent, purged opponents from every sector of government and society, and is now poised to consolidate power further under his self-described ``executive presidency.'' In the short term, the Turkish Government should act swiftly and transparently to investigate credible claims of voting irregularities in the referendum, as well as the legality of a surprise electoral board decision to admit an unknown number of ballots that should be deemed invalid under existing rules. Public trust in the outcome of such a consequential vote is of utmost importance. Sadly, until now, the government has responded to these challenges with dismissiveness and suppression. In the past week, dozens of activists have been detained for participating in protests against the election results. Furthermore, the government should lift the state of emergency, stop all forms of repression against the free press, release all imprisoned journalists and political activists, and urgently restore public confidence in the judiciary. Only then can it credibly and independently adjudicate the tens of thousands of cases caught up in the government's months-long dragnet operations. A country where disagreements are suppressed rather than debated is less secure. A country where institutions are subordinated to personalities is less stable. A country where criticism is conflated with sedition is less democratic. Unless President Erdogan moves urgently to reverse these trends, I fear our partnership will inevitably become more transactional and less strategic. It will become more difficult to justify long-term investment in our relationship with Turkey if the future of the country becomes synonymous with the fortunes of one party or one individual. The United States and Turkey need a solid foundation for enduring cooperation to tackle regional instability, terrorism, migration, and other challenges. The future of this partnership is difficult to imagine in the midst of a prolonged state of emergency, wide-scale purges, and weakened democratic institutions.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a troubling issue for our Navy, our national defense, and a problem that should be of concern to Members of this body. Our Navy pilot training installations, including Naval Air Station Meridian in my home State of Mississippi, produce some of the finest pilots on the planet. They trained on the T-45 Goshawk. On Friday, March 31, a significant number of T-45 instructor pilots at NAS Meridian, NAS Kingsville in Texas, and NAS Pensacola in Florida decided not to fly because of safety concerns. As you can imagine, this was an almost unprecedented act and brought considerable attention to a problem plaguing the Navy's tactical fighter community: a dramatic and sustained increase in so-called physiological episodes, or PE events, across the FA-18 Hornet, the EA-18 Growler, and the training jet T-45 Goshawk fleets. Physiological episodes occur when air crew experience diminished inflight performance related to loss or contamination of oxygen, depressurization in the cockpit, or other factors. There are some technical terms I am going to mention to my colleagues. Hypoxic hypoxia occurs when pilots are getting insufficient oxygen. A more serious phenomenon called histotoxic hypoxia occurs when they are breathing contaminated oxygen, and of course depressurization occurs when the cabin pressure drops. I have been assured that solving this physiological episode problem is now naval aviation's No. 1 one safety priority. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to continue the committee's oversight on this issue and, if necessary, include provisions in the upcoming Defense authorization bill to help. I applaud the work of our full committee chairman, Senator McCain, on his efforts so far. In fact, Senator McCain knows NAS Meridian very well, having served there as an instructor pilot. The airfield named ``McCain Field'' is in honor of Senator McCain's grandfather, ADM John McCain. The Navy has told Congress and the American people repeatedly that its effort to mitigate and solve the problems of these PE events, including histotoxic hypoxia, are ``resource unconstrained.'' In other words, the Navy has told us that money is no object in solving this problem, time is no object, and personnel is no object. As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to put that claim to test. I would like to update my colleagues on the situation--my factfinding trip to Meridian, the state of play, and the plan going forward. Beginning around 2010, a significant increase in reported PE events occurred, which led to the establishment of a Physiological Episode Team to identify root causes, develop mitigation efforts and solutions. This team mainly addressed the less serious problem of hypoxic hypoxia, but in recent months, there has been an alarming uptick in histotoxic hypoxia, a relatively new phenomenon involving contaminated oxygen in the cockpit. This has presented new challenges. The Navy has not identified a root cause for either type of hypoxia but has taken steps to mitigate effects through new maintenance rules, equipment changes and redesigns, and by adding data collection tools. However, there is currently not adequate mitigation for the more serious type of hypoxia, which has led to this halt in training. As a search for the root causes continues, data collection is worth stressing. These aircraft do not have automatic sensors. In effect, the pilot is the sensor. Maximizing data collection on every training flight is critical. The collection of more data can help in the analytical effort, which will get us closer to finding the root cause. After the instructor pilots' boycott--which I stress they had every right to do--the Navy issued a safety standdown and stopped all training flights for a period of days. This tactical pause allowed the Navy to send senior leadership to visit the training installations and hear directly from the instructor pilots and students. I respect the considered decisions of both of these groups, the instructor pilots who continued to fly and the ones who engaged in the boycott. After meeting with Pentagon experts on this matter, I then made a factfinding trip to NAS Meridian on April 8. I met with VADM Mike Shoemaker, the commander of Naval Air Forces. Admiral Shoemaker is the air boss who commands operational naval aviation forces. I also met with RADM Dell Bull, who is the chief of Naval Air Training, and I met with NAS Meridian's excellent installation leadership. Perhaps most important, I convened two focus groups: one group of instructor pilots who chose to fly and another group who chose not to fly. Both groups agree that a serious communication problem existed. The meetings with pilots demonstrated that some in the Navy hierarchy did not fully appreciate that this histotoxic hypoxia, contaminated oxygen, was a new and different phenomenon. In addition, the efforts of the Navy leadership were not being communicated effectively to the instructors and the students. In other words, the message was not getting down to the flight line, and the people on the flight line did not feel the message was getting back up to the hierarchy. Many felt their concerns were being ignored. The lack of action on the relatively new emergence of histotoxic hypoxia in the Goshawk only exacerbated the feeling among some that the Navy's actions were not matching its rhetoric. Following my visit on April 8, the Navy took the important step of establishing a Physiological Episode Team for the T-45 alone. This is an important action which should bring more focused attention to the Goshawk community. The Navy ended the safety standdown on April 14 and resumed flying the next week under restricted conditions, such as flying at lower maximum altitudes and pulling fewer Gs. Of course, this is not the optimal way of training. Then, following a subsequent PE incident in Kingsville and feedback from instructor pilots on the mitigation plan, the Navy has chosen to restrict training flights even further. This is a problem. The Navy tells us the current practice would allow a student to complete only about 20 to 25 percent of the curriculum. That is the status today. The Navy is already short on pilots, and continuing the status quo could further constrict the pilot production pipeline. Where do we go from here? The Navy has brought three T-45s that have experienced physiological episodes to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, for extensive engineering investigation and analysis. They are taking the airplanes apart at Pax River. I applaud this action. Initial results of the testing should be available next week with more information to follow as the data is processed. At the same time, engineers have teamed up with pilots from both the test community and the training command, including at least one Meridian instructor pilot. They are investigating possible mitigations, such as alterations to pilot masks. This will allow our instructors and student pilots to get back to what they want to do most; that is, to fly and train new pilots to fly. In addition, on April 21, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Moran, directed Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to lead a month-long review of the facts, circumstances, and processes surrounding the recent episodes and how the Navy has addressed them. The Swift review will evaluate the Navy's organizational structures and processes and make recommendations for additional action. These efforts are desperately needed. Still, we have no real diagnosis. Still, we have no real solution in the works. Senators should know this: As of 3 weeks ago, problems with histotoxic hypoxia at our naval training bases have earned the full attention of the top leadership in the Navy. These problems also have the full attention and oversight of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Seapower Subcommittee. I look forward to continued interaction with the Navy leadership on this very important issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that an American member of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine was killed this past weekend by a landmine. Joseph Stone was carrying out his duties in territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists. Two other members of the team--one from the Czech Republic and another from Germany--were injured. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe controls these monitoring teams. They are comprised of unarmed civilians. The mission has been in the region since 2014, when, unfortunately, Russian-backed troops invaded Crimea. Had Russia lived up to the Minsk agreements and ceased supporting, directing, funding, and fueling separatists in this region, there would have been no need for the mission to continue. Sadly, that is not the case. This particular special monitoring mission currently fields roughly 700 monitors, with 600 of them in Donetsk and Luhansk. Those who are part of this mission are unarmed civilians. They serve as the eyes and ears for the world in the conflict zone. They report on the near-constant violations of the cease-fire, as well as reporting on humanitarian needs of the population. They play an essential role in the understanding of the situation on the ground, often under extremely difficult circumstances and, certainly, as we have seen with Joseph Stone, dangerous circumstances. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I often hear from our top military leaders about the importance of the OSCE and the work being done by the special monitoring missions. In late March, for example, during a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, GEN Curtis M. Scaparrotti, commander of the U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, called attention to the good work of OSCE in the region and the work of the monitoring missions. He confirmed in his testimony that ``Russia is directing combined Russian-separatist forces to target civilian infrastructure and threaten and intimidate OSCE monitors in order to turn up the pressure on Ukraine.'' He also said, ``Russian-led separatist forces continue to commit the majority of ceasefire violations despite attempts by the OSCE to broker a lasting ceasefire along the Line of Contact.'' The tragic death of American Joseph Stone underscores the need for the OSCE monitors to have unfettered access across the front lines and across the border regions controlled by the separatists. This unfortunate tragedy is a result of this access not being granted. I commend the Austrian Foreign Minister, who serves as OSCE chair-in- office, for calling attention to this tragedy and calling for an immediate investigation into these events. Those who are responsible for the death of Joseph Stone and the injury of the two other monitors should be held accountable. Joseph Stone died serving his country by serving as a part of this international effort, and I extend my condolences this evening to his family and friends. I once again call on the Russian leadership to put an end to the cycle of violence and to live up to its OSCE commitments. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, the U.S. part of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I think it is important for Members of the Senate and for Americans to understand the important role that Americans are playing in this effort. Mr. President, 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 rise to express my strong support for Judge Neil Gorsuch, to say that I will proudly vote in favor of his confirmation tomorrow, and to express my confidence that history will judge this nominee to be an outstanding Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I hope he serves a long and distinguished career and believe he will. I think Justice Neil Gorsuch will turn out to be a credit to the Supreme Court, to the President who nominated him, and to the Senate that will confirm him tomorrow. It is unfortunate that we have had quite a bit of discussion about procedure and the process that has gotten us to this vote, which will take place tomorrow afternoon. I had a conversation with one of my Democratic colleagues yesterday afternoon as we were leaving the Capitol Building. This is a person with whom I have worked on issues and for whom I have great regard. I asked him how he was doing, and he said: Well, OK. I am just getting ready for the United States Senate to be forever changed. I paused for a moment, and I said: How can it be that two reasonably intelligent Senators of good will can look at the same factual situation and see it so differently? I think my colleague did agree that, indeed, the situation we have is what has led us to our proceedings today. I do believe my colleagues on the other side of the procedural issues today are people of good will who are trying to do the right thing by their country on this issue, just as I have been. Let's look first of all at the candidate himself, and then I might take a moment or two to talk about what we have already done. That decision has been made. Let's talk about Neil Gorsuch, about this outstanding future Supreme Court Justice who I believe will be sworn in tomorrow or the next day. Is Neil Gorsuch qualified? Really, can anyone contest that he is highly qualified? He is perhaps one of the most qualified people ever to have been nominated by a President for the High Court. He has degrees from Columbia, Harvard Law, and Oxford University. He has received the American Bar Association's highest rating, the gold standard that we look at when it comes to judging nominees for the Federal bench up to and including the High Court. He served for 10 years with distinction on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Clearly, he has got the qualifications, and clearly, he is among that group of qualified individuals that the President promised to look at back during the campaign and promised to send that type of individual over to the Supreme Court. I really don't think there is much that can be said to contradict the fact that Neil Gorsuch is qualified and highly qualified. So now let's ask if Neil Gorsuch is somehow out of the broad judicial mainstream. Again, I think it is clear that, based on his history, based on his testimony, and based on his rulings up until now, he is part of the broad judicial mainstream that will put him in good company on the Supreme Court and makes him a worthy successor to Justice Scalia. First of all, he has earned the praise of both conservatives and liberals. He has even won the endorsement of President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General, who wrote in the New York Times, ``If the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver should be at the top of the list.'' So thank you to the former Acting Solicitor General for going beyond ideology and political philosophy and saying a true statement that Judge Gorsuch is outstanding and should be at the top of the list. Editorial boards across the country have touted Judge Gorsuch's credentials and temperament. The Denver Post, his hometown newspaper, wrote an editorial praising his ability to apply the law fairly and consistently. Of course, there has been newspaper after newspaper from the right and left across this country who come down on this side of the issue saying that Judge Gorsuch should be confirmed. Let's look also--and this has been pointed out so often that you wonder if you should say it again, but Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit has participated in 2,700 cases, he has written over 800 opinions, and has been overruled by the Supreme Court one time. Is this a judicial radical? I think not. I think this is someone who is demonstrated to be in the judicial mainstream--one reversal by the Supreme Court out of 800 written decisions and 2,700 votes cast on panels with the Tenth Circuit. He has almost always been in the majority some 99 percent of the panels he served on, he was in the majority of those opinions, and 97 percent of those decisions were unanimous. This is hardly some radical pick as some might have suggested. Has the process been unfair? We have heard a lot about this. A lot of my dear friends on the other side of the aisle feel aggrieved for sure. They feel that Judge Garland, the nominee of President Obama in 2016, was treated unfairly. I would simply make this observation, and the American public can decide if this was unfair. This is a vacancy that came up during a heated, hotly contested Presidential year. There is really no doubt that, under similar circumstances, had the roles been reversed and had a Republican tried to nominate a nominee in the last year of his 8-year term, that a Democrat majority in the Senate would have done exactly as we did. I am not guessing when I say this because the Democratic leaders of previous years have said as much. No less than Joe Biden--who was a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and later on became Vice President for 8 years--no less than Joe Biden said exactly the same. It almost became the Biden rule. Republican Presidential nominees taken up during the final year of a term will not be considered by a Democratic Senate. So the shoe was on the other foot, and we acted the same. So we will leave it up to the American people to decide whether Judge Garland was treated unfairly. I do not believe he was. As a matter of fact, I felt very comfortable during 2016 saying that who fills a Supreme Court seat is so important, such a significant and long-lasting decision, that the American people deserve to be heard on this issue. I felt comfortable making the Presidential election largely about what the Supreme Court would look like over the coming years. There is no question about it, the American people got to decide in November of 2016 whether they would like a judge in the mold of Justice Scalia whose seat we were trying to fill or would they like a judge in the mold of Judge Garland who President Obama was seeking to put in place. So I make no apology for saying to the American people, You get to decide in this Presidential year what sort of Supreme Court you want. The American people made that decision, and I am comfortable with that. I was asked today by several members of the press about the change in the rules that I voted for today. It is not a situation that makes me overly joyed. It is not my idea of a good time to overrule a precedent and to substitute another one in its place. You would rather not do that if you are a U.S. Senator; but the fact is that it puts us back into a place that we were for 200 years in this Republic. From the beginning of this Senate, 1789 through 1889, through 1989, up to and including 2003, there was no filibuster at all on Supreme Court Justices. There was no partisan filibuster at all in Supreme Court Justices, and no judge had ever been denied his position because of a partisan filibuster at any level--Federal judge, circuit level, or Supreme Court. That changed in 2003, and with the Miguel Estrada nomination, our Democrat friends stopped a qualified judge from going on the Federal appeals court. That was the beginning of an unfortunate 14-year experiment in judicial filibusters. It is not a filibuster that I think--it is not a precedent or experiment that I think this Senate can be very proud of, but it took place over a relatively short period of time over 14 years, and it ends it today. As of today, the U.S. Senate is back where it was for over 200 years in the history of this Senate and the history of our Republic without the ability to stop a judge on a partisan filibuster. In fact, this fact cannot be contradicted. There has never been in the history of our country, even in this past decade and a half of having the possibilities of a Supreme Court filibuster, there has never been a Supreme Court nominee in the history of our republic stopped by a partisan filibuster. Today that 225-year or so precedent would have ended had we not acted to change the rules back to where we are back to fundamental principles. I was not willing to see Judge Neil Gorsuch be that first nominee stopped by a partisan filibuster in the history of our country. I was simply not willing to do that. We now must proceed to the rest of our business. We will confirm Judge Gorsuch tomorrow. I think he will serve well. Then we have work to do. We have other nominees to consider, and then we've got an agenda that we need to tend to for our people. I am encouraged by the exchange of the first early steps of goodwill after this divisive process. Indeed, there was an article in one of our publications today that talked about a healthy feeling now in both caucuses, that we have got to put this procedural episode behind us, this crisis behind us and legislate. I am glad to hear that sort of bipartisan talk coming from the other side of the aisle. Another of my friends across the aisle said, ``We're not looking for dilatory procedures,'' he said. ``When there are things where we can work together, we're looking for that.'' I am encouraged--even encouraged that my friend who I was talking to yesterday afternoon will conclude that we have not forever changed the Senate in a negative way, that we are, in fact, back to where we were before 2003 and getting things done. In the end, this is about an individual who is qualified. It is about a vacancy that needs to be filled. I for one am highly comfortable that the President, in Neil Gorsuch, has put forth an outstanding, eminently qualified judge and that he will serve us well. My vote tomorrow in favor of confirmation will be cast enthusiastically and proudly, and I think that it will stand the test of time. I thank the Presiding Officer very much, and at this time, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, earlier today, during his opening remarks, the distinguished majority leader paid tribute to my senior Senator, Thad Cochran, upon the occasion of his becoming the 10th longest serving Senator in the history of our Republic. If you think about this--I just checked with the cloakroom--the Senate first convened in March of 1789 in New York City. In the 228 years of the United States Senate, Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, now becomes the 10th longest serving Senator in history. Quite a milestone. I was chairing a subcommittee hearing this morning and was not able to be on the floor during the majority leader's remarks, and so I take a moment to now pay tribute to Senator Cochran at this milestone in his career and in the history of the Senate. Most Senators do not know Senator Cochran and I were born in the same small town. We are both natives of Pontotoc, MS. We are alumni of the same university. We are both Ole Miss Rebels. We also share the same political lineage in Mississippi of being early pioneers in the development of the Republican Party. I was the first Republican Member of the House of Representatives in my congressional district, the First District of Mississippi, back in 1994. Senator Cochran blazed an even more significant trail by becoming the first popularly elected Republican Senator from Mississippi back in 1978--in over a century. He succeeded former President pro tempore Jim Eastland, of Mississippi. I have been able to watch him and be somewhat of a teammate over the decades, and I just want to pay tribute to Thad Cochran as being a trailblazer for quite some time. This is a milestone, and it is a testament to the proven record that Senator Cochran has built over 38 years in this Chamber. He served for 6 years in the House prior to that, so he has been around a long time. He has always been a good public servant. He has always been a strong American. He has always been a good member of the troop. He is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and a lot of funds are distributed through that committee. He is part of the team, and his committee is part of the team. Again, a lot of our colleagues do not realize this, but we set budget numbers--the House and Senate. We come to an agreement, and we set those spending levels. Then the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Thad Cochran, does the hard work of figuring out how to abide by those budget caps, and they do it year in and year out. With leadership like Senator Thad Cochran's, usually, the numbers are crunched, and they make it work on a bipartisan basis. Many of the votes in the Appropriations Committee last year, under the leadership of Chairman Cochran, were unanimous votes or virtually unanimous votes. At the same time, he has been able to, within the constraints of those budget caps, take care of the needs of our country and certainly the needs of our State of Mississippi at some very dark moments in the history of our State. Hurricane Katrina--the worst natural disaster in recorded history ever to hit the North American Continent--was visited upon our State, and we were certainly fortunate to have the leadership of Senator Thad Cochran, and I was glad to be his partner in that regard. After Deepwater Horizon, the entire gulf coast region--and in fact the entire Nation--benefited from the leadership of Senator Cochran. He makes us proud, and he has made us proud for years and years now. He was called by someone the ``quiet persuader,'' and that nickname has stuck and has been appropriate for quite some time. Throughout his time in Congress, indeed, Thad Cochran has been the quiet persuader. Not a lot of demagoguery, not a lot of arm-waving, not a lot of rhetoric comes from this desk in front of me--but leadership and resolve and taking care of business on behalf of the United States of America. Before he was a Congressman, Thad Cochran was a successful young lawyer, and before that, he was a member of the Navy. He served our country well. Before that, he was perhaps the most outstanding law student with perhaps the highest grade point average ever in the history of the ``Ole Miss'' law school. So he has made us proud in so many ways. Although I was not able to be on the floor at the moment when Senator McConnell made this recognition, I did want to come, now that I have a moment or two, and add my words of encouragement and congratulations to Thad Cochran, but also my words of appreciation on behalf of a grateful State and a grateful Nation for the many ways in which Thad Cochran has made us a better and a stronger country. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise this afternoon in support of Scott Pruitt, nominated for EPA Administrator, and to congratulate the leadership of this Senate and the administration for persevering on this nomination to the point where we will get a vote tomorrow afternoon and I think be able to end the week on a positive note. My good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, had just called for a good bipartisan day on the Senate floor, and I support many of the remarks she made in that regard. I would hope we could begin having some good bipartisan days with regard to the administration's nominations for these important positions. Sadly, it looks as though we will not have a bipartisan vote for Scott Pruitt. He will be confirmed but not nearly with the vote he should receive from Members on both sides of the aisle who know that there has been extreme overreach on the part of the EPA leadership under the Obama administration. The EPA needs a change in direction, and they need to become more sensible with regard to stopping pollution, while at the same time being friendly on job creation. So we will get this nomination finished tomorrow and we will have a good Administrator, but regrettably it will not be on a very bipartisan basis. This is the Scott Pruitt whom I have had a chance to learn about since he was nominated in January. The Scott Pruitt I have had a chance to learn about took on the polluters as attorney general for his State of Oklahoma and finalized multistate agreements to limit pollution, and he did so working with Democrats and working with Republicans on a bipartisan basis across the political spectrum. I think we need that sort of person as EPA Administrator. Scott Pruitt negotiated a water rights settlement with the tribes to preserve scenic lakes and rivers, and I think he is to be congratulated on that, not scolded. He stood up to oil companies and gas companies as attorney general for the State of Oklahoma and challenged them when they were polluting his State's air and water. Then--something I applaud--when the EPA overstepped its bounds and its mission and ceased to follow the law, he challenged the EPA. I submit to my colleagues that that is exactly the sort of balance we need to return to as Administrator of the EPA. In the hearing, which was rather extraordinary because of its length, Attorney General Pruitt demonstrated his knowledge, he demonstrated his intellect, and he demonstrated his patience. He was available all day long--an extraordinarily long hearing--answered more than 200 questions propounded at the hearing, and then beyond that he has now answered more than 1,000 questions for the record. Yet, in spite of this, it is disappointing that some of my colleagues, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, have taken not only to disparaging his qualifications and his suitability for this position but also engaged in a slow-walking process designed to keep this nomination from even coming forward. Every Democrat boycotted the committee meeting that was called to report this nomination to the floor so that we could even have an up- or-down vote. They walked out of the meeting. This is the sort of tactic we were able to overcome on a parliamentary basis, but it has given us what we now know is the slowest confirmation process in 225 years. The only President to have a slower confirmation process was the one who was getting it all kicked off to start with; George Washington's was a bit slower. We will see. Maybe if this keeps going, we could surpass the slowness of the confirmation process that occurred for our first President. We need a change at EPA. The American people are ready for a change at EPA. We need an EPA Administrator who will listen to the environmentalists but also listen to the job creators. This means listening to the election but moving past the election and getting on to filling the positions that are important to Americans, such as the EPA Administrator. Most Americans believe we can protect the environment and still protect job creators, and so does Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Most Americans believe we can have clean air and water without destroying thousands upon thousands of jobs for Americans. That is what I believe. That is what Scott Pruitt believes. I would quote from a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which William McGurn wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt but also generally in support of other nominations. With regard to Pruitt, Mr. McGurn says this: ``The fierce opposition to Mr. Pruitt speaks to the progressive fear that he might help restore not only science to its rightful place but also federalism.'' I think that is what Scott Pruitt is going to be about when he is confirmed tomorrow and finally gets down to working for us, the taxpayers, as Administrator of EPA. This is about the 1-month mark in this administration, and we are slowly getting past this unprecedented slow-walk effort by our colleagues. I certainly hope that with the 1,100 other appointments that have to be submitted and have to be spoken to by this Senate, we can hasten the process so we can pass legislation and be about the business our constituents sent us here to do. Approving Attorney General Scott Pruitt will allow us to move forward with the people's business with a man who has demonstrated courtesy, intelligence, patience, and professionalism, and I will be honored to be one of those voting yes tomorrow when we confirm this outstanding candidate as EPA Administrator. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Scott Pruitt.

Mr. WICKER. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. today and that the time during recess count postcloture on the Sessions nomination.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have two 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 veterans' affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. special committee on aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2017, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stopping Senior Scams: Developments in Financial Fraud Affecting Seniors.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues in expressing support for S. Con. Res. 3, the budget resolution which, as most Americans now know, is the vehicle we will use to begin the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. This is a matter of keeping our word to the American people. This is a matter of keeping our promises that we have made, not only during the last campaign cycle but repeatedly since I voted against this bill some 8 years ago. It was enacted in January of 2010. Republicans on this side of the aisle and many Americans repeatedly opposed the ObamaCare expansion of Federal power. We said it wouldn't work. We said the President would not be able to keep his promises to the American people and when we got a chance to go back into the majority, we would repeal that act. On this side of the aisle, this is a followup on years and years of determination on our part to right this wrong, to keep our promises, and come up with a better plan to help Americans have coverage they can afford and a doctor they can keep. I intend to support the chairman of the Budget Committee in the votes we will have today and tonight. We have what some people call the vote- arama tonight. A number of votes will be taken in rapid succession, and we don't know how many will actually be offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I believe I will be able to vote against all of these amendments because I think keeping a clean bill makes it more likely we will be able to pass this legislation, send it to over to the House of Representatives where it can be tweaked but passed and get back to us for final approval, and actually get a bill to President- elect Trump after he takes office, repealing ObamaCare so we can replace it with something that works. This is our opportunity to keep our campaign promise. This is our opportunity to help the President-elect and the Vice President-elect keep their campaign promises and show to the American people that elections have consequences and that at least this group of public officials intends to keep our word with regard to this piece of legislation. It was well intended, no doubt, but it could not possibly have worked to do the things that President Obama said it could do. In 2009 and 2010, the President told us: If you like your health plan, you get to keep it. It turns out that is a promise that was not kept because it could not be kept. The President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep that doctor. Again, this is a promise this administration and our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle were unable to keep. That is why so many people around the country are opposed to keeping ObamaCare. They want it to be repealed. They want a drastically different approach involving market principles to be put in its place so it will work for patients and work for the American people. ObamaCare is not working. It is not working in my home State of Mississippi. It is not working for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance. It is it is not working for millions of Americans who saw their premiums rise and their deductibles go to unimaginable heights. Of course, I know the Presiding Officer and I have heard from constituents at home, and I am going to take this opportunity to share with you some of the views I have heard from people in Mississippi who are looking to us in the House and in the Senate to rectify this situation with regard to this disastrous piece of legislation. A 62-year-old individual from Madison, MS, wrote to me saying: Please explain the term ``affordable'' in the Affordable Care Act. . . . I recently went to Healthcare.gov to look at possible health insurance plans. . . . The estimates range from over $18,000 to over $26,000 per year. That is anywhere from 13.5% to 18.6% of our gross salary. So forget about saving for retirement. The system is flawed. Another Mississippian wrote to me: I have read in many publications about the increases in premiums for ObamaCare, but that is actually a moot point when the only insurance . . . that my doctor and my wife's doctor will take is PULLING out (of the exchange) leaving my wife with no choice but to possibly return to work just for the insurance. A third constituent from Saltillo, MS, wrote: I just applied at the market place for health insurance. My quote was $415 monthly with a deductible of $6850. I work less than 30 hours a week in retail. There is no way that I can afford that. This constituent from Saltillo goes on to say: What am I supposed to do? I have a car payment and I need to eat. Well, I think help is on the way. The action we are going to take this week in sending this resolution over to the House of Representatives is a form of keeping our promise and providing assistance to this constituent of mine. These stories go on and on. For a woman in Gulfport whose husband lost his job, the cheapest plan in the ObamaCare exchange was $1,042 with a $13,000 deductible. This constituent calls ObamaCare ``legalized extortion.'' A 60-year-old constituent was understandably upset when his insurance went up by $113 a month. He then noticed that coverage he didn't request had been added to his policy without wanting it or needing it. Pediatric dentistry and birth control were required on this plan, two things neither he nor his wife want to use or want to pay for. So I want to remind my colleagues that ObamaCare is hurting individuals--individuals who have written to me, and individuals who have written to all of my colleagues, but it is also hurting small businesses in Mississippi and small businesses in Pennsylvania and around the country. I would remind my colleagues that most jobs in the United States are created not by large corporations, not by the big- ticket manufacturing plants that come into our States and districts that we like to have, but by small businesses--businesses of under 200 people. A small business owner in South Mississippi wrote to me. Following her husband's retirement, she had to find health care through the exchange. Her county borders Louisiana, and many Mississippians travel across State lines for work. The health care network that she has used for 20 years is no longer an option for her because ObamaCare policies do not allow beneficiaries to use networks in different States. That is also something we need to address when we finally put in place the replacement portion of this mechanism. The plan for this nonsmoker, with no preexisting conditions, under the exchange cost her $900 a month in premiums and she was not able to keep her doctor. It is not just constituents in my more or less Republican State, among my more or less Republican constituents in the State of Mississippi who are telling the truth about ObamaCare. I want to quote Bill Clinton, speaking on behalf of his wife in Flint, MI, on October 4 of last year. Former President Bill Clinton said this: You've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It is the craziest thing in the world. President Bill Clinton said that just last year in Flint, MI. I think if we come to grips with this, we will admit that this is a crazy system. It was well intended by some of my Democratic friends but one that has failed; one that has failed the American people and one that has failed to keep the promises that were solidly made when the bill was rammed through on a strictly partisan basis. Every Democrat was supporting it. No Republicans were supporting it at all. There was no Republican input, no bipartisan input on overhauling one of the most significant systems in our country. It is time for us to move forward, and tonight is a step forward. We certainly aren't going to get it all done in one fell swoop, and even when we get the bill signed into law by our new President Donald Trump, it will take a while for it to be put into place. Tonight we show that we meant what we said and we said what we meant, and we are going to follow through. We are going to pass this resolution tonight and begin the process of keeping our promises to the American people to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something that works for the millions and hundreds of millions of Americans out there who depend on us for good policy. Seeing no other Members seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess, following the remarks of Senator Casey, until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Washington moves on to her other duties, I want to commend her and Senator Alexander for the outstanding job they have done and for the long hours she and her colleagues on the HELP Committee have put in to making the Cures Act the reality that it will be in a few days. I know the distinguished Senator is on her way to other meetings. I have a few things to say about it, but I want to express that before she leaves the Chamber. Truly, as Senator Murray said, the 21st Century Cures Act is a world- changing piece of legislation. It seems rather quiet and unremarkable today, but I actually believe we are taking a major step toward disease cure and health care research that rivals the legislation which actually founded the National Institutes of Health some decades ago. So we are about important business here at Christmastime as we near the end of this lameduck session. Senator Blunt and I and perhaps other Senators were over in the Chamber of the other body last Wednesday afternoon when the House of Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 392 to 26. I appreciated the work House leaders did from top to bottom and on both sides of the aisle on this important legislation. Of course, I am always pleased to visit my colleagues over there. A number of our House colleagues were over here last night when the Senate invoked cloture on the Cures Act by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 13. We will get to the vote either this afternoon or early tomorrow, and I have every confidence that there will be a strong vote on final passage. The 21st Century Cures Act is the product of several years of bipartisan work in both Houses. My friend from Washington State gave a comprehensive overview of the legislation, which is indeed breathtaking. I wish to come behind her and mention what an accomplishment this is in three areas--first, in Alzheimer's research; second, in pediatric research; and finally, in the drug approval process. I appreciate my friend from Washington and 62 others agreeing to take into this legislation the EUREKA Act, which I was happy to sponsor and which 62 of my colleagues cosponsored. EUREKA would and will initiate prize competitions in the fight against some of our Nation's most terrible diseases, including Alzheimer's. These prizes would pay only for success, and they would complement current funding that is and will be ongoing, according to the legislation. So this will be over and above what we are already doing for Alzheimer's. The Senator from Washington is correct about how costly Alzheimer's is. It will top $1 trillion in taxpayer cost by the year 2050 unless we get a cure or unless we achieve major goals with regard to stopping Alzheimer's. So it is an expensive disease--the most expensive disease in the history of this country--but it is also terribly expensive in terms of human suffering. I know many Americans, including my family, have been touched in a very terrible and dramatic way by Alzheimer's. I am pleased that the EUREKA prizes are part of this legislation. I want to thank everyone who helped us in this regard. I am thankful for the advice we got from the XPRIZE Foundation and from all of the Alzheimer's groups, including the Alzheimer's Association and UsAgainstAlzheimer's. Thanks should also go to Dr. Francis Collins and the entire team at the National Institutes of Health for making this legislation work and for listening to a different idea--the concept of prizes for health care research--and giving it an attentive ear and being willing to agree that, in addition to the funding, we would attack these diseases with a prize competition. The NIH funding in Cures includes additional dollars for the BRAIN Initiative, and these EUREKA prizes will ensure that our researchers have the tools they need. Secondly, another important part of the NIH section of the Cures Act is the National Pediatric Research Network, inspired by the Pediatric Research Improvement Act that I was happy to cosponsor with Senator Brown earlier this year. Senator Brown and I have been working together tirelessly to see NIH implement the National Pediatric Research Network, and I am glad to see this provision in the bill. Very simply, the goal is to expand access to clinical trials and treatments for children, especially those with rare diseases. That is a second aspect of this Cures bill that I am so pleased to see the leadership of this committee being attentive to. Thirdly, this bill makes major breakthroughs in the way we approve drugs in this country. I am pleased that language from another bill I cosponsored, the Patient-Focused Impact Assessment Act, was included in the bill. This section of the Cures bill would ensure that patients understand the way FDA considers the patient experience and the way FDA considers data in the drug approval process. So for patients like those living with Duchenne and their families, for people who are interested in the drug approval process, and for the parents of children, this is a truly bipartisan achievement. I am happy that Senator Murray was here so I could congratulate her in person. Certainly Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of our HELP Committee, deserves high praise from both sides of the aisle for his leadership in this regard, as well as the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives. As we enter this holiday season, patients, advocates, and providers have an extra reason to rejoice as this bill heads to the President's desk. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Order for Recess

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have 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:

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 come to the floor to express my support for the ECHO Act, which the Senate will be voting on in approximately 1 hour. This represents bipartisan work--another bipartisan achievement during this very productive term of Congress. In this case it is Senators Hatch and Schatz who have led us to this morning's vote. The ECHO Act is named after Project ECHO, an innovative telehealth- inspired model originally conceived at the University of New Mexico. Project ECHO has created promising opportunities for primary care clinicians to receive high-quality specialty training remotely. In this way, the most remote patient in the most underserved area can receive specialized care by his hometown doctor or provider. I am a longtime supporter of using technology and telehealth to improve patients' access to quality care. New Mexico is a State with many rural areas, as is my State of Mississippi. For that reason, Mississippi and New Mexico have had to be leaders in innovative health care models for years, such as Project ECHO in New Mexico and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, MS. At UMMC we are national leaders in providing technology-enabled care remotely. While ECHO emphasizes training among professionals, the University of Mississippi Medical Center has used remote technology for clinical care and patient monitoring. Since 2003, the medical center in Jackson has reached more than one- half million rural Mississippians through the use of telehealth. To date, the program includes more than 30 specialties and can reach patients at more than 200 clinical sites. Like Senator Hatch, I have reached across the aisle to work with our friend from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, to expand an innovative model for the rest of the country. Specifically, I worked this year with Senator Schatz on the CONNECT for Health Act, which has been endorsed by nearly 100 organizations. Like CONNECT, the ECHO Act aims at taking a proven approach to technology-enabled care and bringing it to underserved populations across the country. The CONNECT for Health Act, which is S. 2484, would be a small but significant step toward payment parity for telehealth services under the Medicare Program. In addition to removing specific barriers to telemedicine, the bill would allow for coverage of certain remote patient monitoring services for patients with multiple chronic diseases. Remote patient monitoring is a model the University of Mississippi Medical Center has used to expand access, improve quality, and reduce hospital admissions for some of our State's most underserved populations. So I want to thank Senator Schatz for his leadership on CONNECT for Health and also ECHO, which again we will be voting on in just a few moments. I extend my utmost appreciation to Senator Schatz and to Senator Hatch and the Committee on Finance for including policies inspired by our CONNECT for Health Act in the bipartisan chronic care outline. I am confident proposals to advance telehealth can improve access and cut costs, and I look forward to seeing CONNECT enacted also, but today I am pleased and thrilled we are taking an important step forward with the passage of the ECHO Act. I yield the floor.