John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is one thing Americans have made clear, it is that they want their leaders to do something about the economy. The recession may have officially ended almost 6 years ago, but millions of Americans are still struggling economically and opportunities are still few and far between. One big thing we can do to help the economy and expand opportunities for American workers is pass trade promotion authority or what we refer to as TPA. Our prior trade agreements have been a boon to the economy, providing American workers with jobs and American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers with new markets for their goods. In my home State of South Dakota, 74 percent of exports go to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. Between 2005 and 2014, South Dakota saw a 110-percent increase in exports to free-trade agreement countries. That has been a huge benefit to South Dakota farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers. Speaking of farmers and trade, today is National Agriculture Day. I would just like to add as an aside that the substantial agriculture trade surplus the United States currently enjoys is a tribute to the efficiency and the productivity of America's farmers and ranchers. I salute American farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses that provide America and the world with a safe and abundant food supply. Passing trade promotion authority is one way we can ensure an even greater global expansion of U.S. agricultural trade. Currently, the administration is in the process of negotiating two new trade agreements that would open vast new markets for American products and put American goods on a level playing field internationally. The first of these agreements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is being negotiated with a number of Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam. Currently, American goods face heavy tariffs in many of these countries--at times as high as 85 percent. Tariffs of that size put American goods at incredible disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. Tariffs provide a powerful disincentive for citizens in other nations to purchase American products. Removing this disincentive would increase foreign demand for U.S. products, which would mean more business for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers and more jobs and opportunities for American workers. Just to give an example of how important trade is to American agriculture, we currently export half of U.S. wheat, milled rice production, and soybean production; 70 percent of almond, walnut, and pistachio production; more than 75 percent of cotton production; 40 percent of grapes; 20 percent of cherries; 20 percent of apples; 20 percent of poultry and pork production; and 10 percent of beef production. If you think about it, there are approximately now 260 preferential trade agreements worldwide. Only 20 of those involve the United States. Every time we have entered into a new trade agreement where we have been able to eliminate tariffs and duties on a lot of our products, we see an explosion in exports into those particular markets. That is why negotiating the strongest possible transpacific trade agreement, as well as the agreement the United States is negotiating with the European Union, has to be a priority. For that, we have to have trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority has been the means by which nearly every U.S. free-trade agreement has been negotiated. The idea behind TPA is very simple: Congress sets the negotiating priorities the administration must follow and then requires the administration to consult with Congress during the negotiating process. In return, Congress promises a simple up-or-down vote on the final agreement, instead of a lengthy amendment process that could leave the final agreement looking nothing like the deal the administration negotiated. The promise of that up-or-down vote on a final agreement is the key. That is what gives our trading partners the confidence they need to put their best offers on the table, which allows for a successful conclusion of negotiations. Trade promotion authority demonstrates that Congress and the administration are on the same page when it comes to the content of trade agreements and that the final agreement will be either accepted or rejected, not amended beyond recognition. Trade promotion authority expired in 2007. Republicans have been pushing for renewing it ever since. The President is also on board. He called for trade promotion authority in this year's State of the Union Address. This is an excellent chance, I would add, for Democrats and Republicans to accomplish something significant for the American people and to show that Washington is working again. Unfortunately, while the President and Republicans are united on this issue, many Senate Democrats continue to oppose trade promotion authority legislation. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is currently engaged in negotiations on a TPA bill with the committee's ranking member, the senior Senator from Oregon. I am hopeful and I know a lot of us on the committee and many of us in this Chamber are hopeful that these efforts will yield legislation both Republicans and Democrats can support. Republicans are very open to suggestions and improvements. In fact, I expect the final agreement will include many elements advocated by the senior Senator from Oregon and other Senate Democrats, such as greater transparency surrounding trade negotiations. However, the one thing Republicans cannot support is an attempt to undermine the core of trade promotion authority--that guaranteed up-or-down vote that gives other countries the confidence to put forward their best offers in trade negotiations. Simply put, we cannot afford to weaken TPA. I know the senior Senator from Utah, who is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--who is on the floor right now; and we will hear from him in just a few minutes--is working very hard to ensure that we have a strong TPA agreement that we can bring to the floor of the Senate, that we can pass through the Congress, and that we can put on the President's desk so that we can enable these trade negotiations to continue in a way that will lead to a conclusion, to a result that is good for American manufacturers and service industries and American farmers and ranchers. If we fail to pass TPA, which will likely spell the failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the United States-European Union trade agreement, we will not be maintaining the status quo. Just because we are not negotiating agreements does not mean other countries will not be. Other countries will secure favorable treatment of their goods, and American goods will fall further and further behind. That is not something we can afford in this economy. If we pass TPA, on the other hand, that will allow the transpacific trade agreement and the United States-European Union trade agreement to move forward, which means American producers will benefit from new markets for their goods and American workers will benefit from new jobs and opportunities. Since 2009, exports have accounted for more than 1 million new jobs here in the United States. If we pass the Trans- Pacific Partnership and the United States-European Union trade agreements, we could be looking at more than 1 million more new jobs over the next few years. It is time to pass TPA, to get these agreements concluded, and to let American workers and businesses start experiencing the benefits. It has been far too long. Mr. President, 2007 is when the last TPA expired. We are losing ground by the day when we are not in the room and a part of negotiating new trade agreements that are beneficial to American businesses, farmers, and ranchers. I wish to point out one more time that there are approximately now 260 preferential trade agreements worldwide, only 20 of which involve the United States. So if we want to participate in a growing global economy where 95 percent of the world's population lives, we have to become aggressive in creating the trading opportunities that will enable our businesses to prosper, to create good-paying jobs here in the United States, to raise incomes for middle-income families in this country, and to give us as a country an opportunity to lead the world when it comes to an economy that benefits all people--not just those here in the United States but all around the world. We have the wherewithal, the know-how, the technology, the creativity, and the innovation in our economy to make that possible, to make it happen. That is why these trade agreements are so essential. These trade agreements, as I pointed out, do not happen unless we have trade promotion authority in place to make sure they happen. If we do not have it in place and these trade agreements do not get done, it is not that America--that we are just going to be standing still, we are going to be losing ground as countries around the world that are aggressively trying to negotiate trade agreements and improve the economies of their countries continue to do that, leaving us further and further behind. So I hope we can get this passed through the Senate Finance Committee, passed through the Senate, the House of Representatives, and on the President's desk where it can be signed into law. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for our economy, for jobs, for American businesses, and for American farmers and ranchers. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Is it correct that that particular provision, referred to as the Hyde amendment, has been a part of spending bills dating back to 1976? So for literally 40 years the Hyde amendment language has been included in bills we have passed here, particularly bills that are appropriations bills and spending and funding bills?

Mr. THUNE. If they survive, imagine how messed up some of these young victims are going to be for the rest of their lives. We have an opportunity to do something about it. The Democratic leader has described this as a sleight of hand. That is not what this is. This is a clear choice. This is a clear choice by Democrats to choose partisan politics over the victims of human trafficking. It is as simple as that. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop--stop the partisan politics, stop derailing this important opportunity to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to end human trafficking. Putting partisan politics over the lives of 100,000 American children who fall victim to the brutal reality of human trafficking every year is absolutely wrong. To quote our distinguished colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator Mikulski: ``Let's get it done and let's get it done now.'' I would say to my colleague from Texas, life is too precious. These crimes are too serious for this issue to be caught up in the crosshairs of Washington politics. This has to stop. This has to end. This is a piece of bipartisan legislation that will help literally hundreds of thousands--millions, I would say--of Americans across this country. It is time we begin to right the wrongs of injustice by turning the tide in law enforcement's favor to help those who are trying to combat these terrible, heinous crimes to succeed and to help the victims of these crimes restore their lives. I appreciate the good work of the Senator from Texas and others who have been involved with this. I urge my colleagues to end this shenanigan, this charade that is going on before the Senate. Let's get this bill passed and on the President's desk.

Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Texas, again, who has been so instrumental in getting this to the floor, that a 68-page bill is certainly readable. They have had several months to look at and read it. When a bill is reported out of a committee, it means it has been analyzed, looked at, and open to debate and amendments, and it came out unanimously. Every Democrat voted for it. They voted for a provision that literally has been a matter of policy and law in this country dating back to 1976 and was voted on as recently as December of last year. We had 55 Democrats in this Chamber who voted for this language--very similar language--in December of last year and now they are objecting to a piece of legislation they reported out unanimously in the Judiciary Committee which does something to stop the brutal violation of the innocent in this country, and they are objecting to it over this language.

Mr. THUNE. It is 68 pages long. It was introduced back in January. It was reported out unanimously. All the Democrats on the committee voted for it when it left the Judiciary Committee. When it was brought up on the floor of the Senate, all 100 Senators, including every single Democrat, voted to get on this bill. All of a sudden, here at the 11th hour, we are being held up on a piece of legislation that clearly has unanimous support, or at least I thought should have had unanimous support. They are now objecting because of the language in this legislation. Evidently it is only 68 pages long, which is not a lot to read. ObamaCare was obviously a story where it was argued that after it was passed, we had to figure out what was in it, but that was several thousand pages long. This is a 68-page bill. When the bill was filed, there was an opportunity for people to look at this when the bill went to markup. Countless staffers and Members of Congress have looked at and read this legislation. Now all of a sudden--at the 11th hour--there is an objection because there is language included in this bill which was voted on by 55 Democrats as recently as December. Is that correct? Was there a spending bill that came out of the Congress in December of 2014?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue, as well as the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for moving this legislation to the floor. As the Senator from Texas--who has authored and been involved with this legislation for a long time--knows, if there was ever an issue we have dealt with here in the Senate that goes beyond the line of partisan politics, it is this. We are talking about untold stories of thousands of American children and adults who are sold into modern-day slavery. Those stories are bone chilling and undeniably some of the most deplorable acts of humankind. What the Senator from Texas' bill is designed to do is to start attacking this issue in a way we have not seen for a very long time. It gives law enforcement the tools in order to target these traffickers, bring them to justice, and provides the tools that are necessary to help restore the lives of the victims of these heinous crimes. It is interesting to me that we are where we are. This is clearly a bipartisan issue. My understanding is when this bill was marked up, debated, and voted on in the Judiciary Committee, it came out unanimously. In other words, all the Democrats on the committee voted for it. Is that correct? Is that the way it proceeded from the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. THUNE. This legislation has been here in the Senate for weeks or months.

Mr. THUNE. When was it marked up at the committee level?

Mr. THUNE. This bill was filed on what date?

Mr. THUNE. My understanding is the bill itself is approximately 68 pages long. Is that correct?

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, every year millions of human beings around the world are forced into slave labor and sold for sex. This includes a large number of children. While these crimes are especially prevalent in countries where prosecution of trafficking is lax or essentially nonexistent, the truth is that human trafficking occurs in every country, including right here in the United States. Every year thousands of Americans--most frequently women and children--are trafficked within the borders of the United States. A large number of the victims are children who are bought and sold to feed the twisted desires of sexual predators. That is a key phrase, ``bought and sold,'' because to the criminals who prey on these children, that is what it is about--buying and selling. It is a business. That is right--the sexual exploitation and brutalization of children, some of them not yet teenagers, is a business to the traffickers who ensnare them, and many of them get rich off of the horror these children endure. Traffickers identify vulnerable targets--often children who are already living in difficult circumstances or come from broken homes. They then engage in calculated campaigns to win the trust of these vulnerable children and lure them into their orbit. After the child has been trapped, he or she is brought into a lifestyle whose horrors are difficult to adequately describe. These children are forced into a life of prostitution, their innocence repeatedly and brutally violated hundreds or thousands of times in a year. They are controlled by a combination of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse at the hands of their traffickers. Many of them become hooked on drugs as well thanks to their captors, who see drug dependence as a useful means of control. Some children never escape from this life. They end up dead before they have even left their childhood behind, the victim of a dangerous encounter with a sexual predator or too violent a beating at the hands of a pimp. Those children who do escape can take years or decades to recover from the trauma. Post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and lasting physical injuries are just some of the challenges victims can face as they attempt to rebuild their lives. Some never recover. All of this is nothing more than a business to the traffickers, who enrich themselves off the violation of the innocent. I am reminded of the verse in the Gospels ``For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his soul?'' If there is any crime against which the human person revolts, it is the sexual brutalization of children. It is well known that even hardened criminals despise those who have hurt children in this way. Going after those who traffic in children should be a priority for local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This week we are considering the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, a bill put together by my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it provides a number of important tools to strengthen our efforts to eradicate trafficking in this country and to help its victims. This legislation would give law enforcement additional resources for targeting traffickers, including increased access to wiretaps for State and local task forces conducting human trafficking and child pornography investigations, authorization for programs targeting child exploitation, and offering law enforcement training for returning veterans who want to focus on combating human trafficking. A large portion of the bill is focused on providing assistance to victims as they seek to regain their lives. Among the bill's many victim-related provisions are, first, a deficit-neutral domestic trafficking victims fund to increase the Federal support available to trafficking victims, financed by increased penalties for those convicted of trafficking-related crimes; second, a new block grant program to help State and local governments expand the resources they offer to trafficking victims and strengthen their law enforcement efforts; third, a provision written by my colleague from South Dakota, Representative Kristi Noem, that would help expand the extremely limited housing available to recovering underaged trafficking victims; fourth, a notification requirement to ensure that trafficking victims are told of any plea bargains or deferred prosecution agreements in their case; fifth, a provision to give victims of child pornography access to the same services available to trafficking victims by classifying child pornography production as a type of human trafficking; and sixth, a human trafficking advisory council made up of trafficking survivors to make recommendations to the Federal Government. This legislation has been endorsed by some of the leading organizations in the fight against human trafficking, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Shared Hope International, Rights4Girls, and the National Association to Protect Children. It is also supported by a bipartisan majority here in the Senate, and I am looking forward to passing it in the very near future. The sooner we get these tools in the hands of law enforcement, the better. If we succeed in anything as a society, it should be in protecting the innocent. I hope this legislation will help advance the fight against trafficking in this country and help promote the healing of human trafficking's many victims. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes and that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, be allowed to follow me for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the median time today between when a union files an organizing petition and when employees vote on whether to unionize is 38 days, or just slightly over one month. Some 95 percent of all organizing elections take place less than 2 months after the date an organizing petition is filed, and approximately 70 percent of these elections are won by unions. All in all, I think anyone would agree that unions are doing pretty well and that this is a pretty fair process. In fact, the current median time between union organizing petitions and union elections surpasses the goal set by the National Labor Relations Board itself. One would think it would be a classic case of ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Apparently the Obama nominees on the National Labor Relations Board don't agree. They proposed a new rule which will go into effect next month and that will drastically shorten the time between the initial organizing union petition and the union elections to anywhere from 11 to 22 days. While the current situation, if anything, gives an advantage to unions, it also provides adequate time for employers to express any concerns and for employees to hear the pros and cons of the union proposal. The new NLRB rule would remove these protections. Businesses would have to respond to the union organizing petition within 7 days of its being filed, which would leave employers scrambling to research any arguments they want to bring up at the union organizing hearing. Small businesses, which frequently lack experience dealing with unions or in-house counsel to provide advice, would be hit particularly hard by this rule. But it is not just businesses that would suffer. Under the new rule employees would have very little chance to research and consider the benefits and drawbacks of joining a union. They would be forced into a hasty decision with little opportunity to change their minds later on. In addition, the rule also presents substantial privacy concerns for employees. Under the current system, employers already have to give unions employees' names and home addresses. The new rule would expand that disclosure requirement to include employees' cell phone numbers, email addresses, work schedules, and shift locations. Worse, the rule contains no additional requirements for safeguarding that information or disposing of it appropriately. Given the ever-growing concerns about privacy, it is astonishing that any employer would be forced to give up so much sensitive information without the explicit permission of his employees. This new rule is unfair to employers and it is unfair to workers. There is a reason it is called the ambush elections rule. It would ambush employers and employees alike. Unions would have unlimited time to organize, while employers would be given almost no time to present their concerns and exercise their free speech and due process rights. Employees would be pushed into making the long-term decision about whether to join a union without all the facts. Government should not be in the business of tilting the playing field in favor of unions at the expense of workers and businesses. The NLRB'S ambush elections rule is unfair and undemocratic. I hope Congress will pass the joint resolution of disapproval we are considering today, and I hope the President will sign it. The rights of American workers and businesses should not be sacrificed to the demands of unions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from North Dakota on this issue. He has been a fierce advocate for many months in the Senate for the jobs and economic activity, the energy independence, and the positive benefits to our national security in building this pipeline. The most recent development is the frustration with having the President veto a bill that has more than 60 cosponsors in the Senate. This is a broad bipartisan bill. The Senator from North Dakota worked very hard to make it that way. A lot of Members on both sides of the aisle support this pipeline. What is striking to me about it is some of the misstatements and things that have been said here recently--the President in his veto message and some of the things he said. The Washington Post Fact Checker, as recently as a couple days ago, pointed out that when the President said that this is going to bypass the United States and we are not going to get any benefit from this, not only did they give him one, two, three--he got four Pinocchios from the Washington Post. What that means, folks, is that is a really big whopper to suggest that there is not going to be any benefit to the United States from this. In fact, they went on to point out in that story that their estimate is that 70 percent of the oil to be refined would be used in this country. Furthermore, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, this is a significant investment, obviously, by people who want to do business in the United States because of our rule of law or rules and certainty that come with that. The production, the oil sands up there in North Dakota is 30 percent owned by Americans. There is a lot of American ownership in this, and Canada is our friend and ally. Instead of getting the same type or quality of oil from a country where we don't have a favorable relationship--Venezuela, for instance--we can get it from Canada, and it can come through this country. The suggestion that it is not going to benefit anybody in this country is completely wrong. I know the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out before that up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day would be put in here from his State of North Dakota and from Montana--a lot of the light, sweet crude that is so valued--and it would take pressure off the railroads. Interestingly enough, the Senator from North Dakota pointed out that the administration found no significant environmental impact. Well, think about this. You are now putting this oil on a railcar or a truck, and the studies show that creates 28 to 42 percent more emissions than shipping it in a pipeline. It is going to go some way. It is going to go on a truck, a railcar or a pipeline. If it goes on a railcar or a truck, it will create 28 to 42 percent more emissions than transporting it through a pipeline. From an environmental standpoint, it makes all the sense in the world. As somebody who represents a border State to North Dakota, we have had our own issues these last couple of years with the rail service and trying to get our agriculture commodities to the marketplace. There is an awful lot of pressure to move oil on rail. If you can move some of that in the pipeline--100,000 barrels a day--it takes a lot of pressure off of the rails and frees up that infrastructure and capacity to move agricultural commodities that are so important to both of our States. There is a lot of misinformation that has been put out on this particular subject. I hope we can at least have discussions based upon a common set of facts, and most of the facts we are talking about are things that have been put out by the administration. My State of South Dakota--as the Senator from North Dakota mentioned--would be crossed by this. The estimate by the State Department was that it would create $100 million in earnings in South Dakota, create 3,000 to 4,000 construction jobs, and generate about $20 million in property tax revenue. There is an awful lot of interest in my State in what happens with the economic activity, the jobs, the property tax revenue, and what that could do to support local governments, law enforcement, schools, and those sorts of things--not to mention getting us away from the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy. Let's be factual in this discussion. This doesn't bypass the United States. This has tremendous economic and positive economic impacts on our country, and we should not forget that. As we debate this here and have an opportunity now to vote on this veto, we should at least have a set of facts that is consistent with reality. The Senator from Alaska has been very involved and has been a great leader on this issue. My colleague from West Virginia is here as well. He has been working very hard to move this project along. It is unfortunate we are where we are. Perhaps we will be a couple of votes short today, but who knows. Maybe some people will come to the right conclusion and help us advance this important project. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership. The Senator from North Dakota pointed out the number of pipelines that already exist in this country. I know the Senator has also pointed out the positive impact--when we get this down and it gets refined in other parts of this country--that a lot of this energy will be used here in the United States. I appreciate the fact that the Senator has made all of those facts abundantly clear on the floor. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to persuade the President, but I still have hope.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this morning we were fortunate enough to hear Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a joint meeting of Congress. I was disappointed the Vice President and a number of Democratic Members of Congress chose not to attend this event. They missed a powerful speech, and they missed an opportunity to demonstrate America's commitment to our strongest ally, Israel. In his speech before the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about Israel's alliance with the United States to, as he put it, ``defend our common civilization against common threats.'' He spoke of ``values that unite us . . . values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, and compassion.'' These are the values that unite us. They are the values both our Nations are committed to defend. It is an area of the world where respect for liberty and equality is often nonexistent. Israel stands up for these most essential principles. America is proud to be her ally. The Prime Minister spoke this morning about the dangers of a nuclear- armed Iran. I scarcely need to enumerate the reasons why Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is such a dangerous prospect. First and foremost, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. That rather bureaucratic phrase obscures the full horror of what it signifies--that Iran's Government helps advance the activities of those who have made violence their mission and have kept millions of ordinary men, women, and children in the Middle East from living in stability and peace. Iran has fomented hostility toward the State of Israel, and its leaders have publicly stated the desire to wipe the entire Nation of Israel off the map. As Iran spreads violence and oppression abroad, it also uses the same tactics against its people at home. Iran's Government is hostile to freedom of any kind, whether it be freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and thousands of its own citizens have been tortured and imprisoned and executed for daring to stand up for their human rights. Keeping such a regime from developing a nuclear weapon must be a priority. Unfortunately, since November of 2013, when the Obama administration first reached an interim nuclear agreement with Iran, all we have seen from these negotiations are delays and extensions while Iran has received an easing of sanctions. We hear it repeated that ``no deal is better than a bad deal.'' Yet while Israel has made it clear that an agreement which recognizes Iran's right to enrich uranium is unacceptable, our own administration has yet to clearly state what a good deal would look like. When the Senate made efforts to set out the parameters for an acceptable final agreement by introducing the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, which I cosponsored, the President announced that he would veto such a bill without even waiting to see what it would look like after being fully debated and amended. Last week two of my colleagues introduced the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would give Congress 60 days to approve or disapprove any final agreement. It will be telling if the President threatens to veto this bill as well. It is essential that any final agreement on Iran's nuclear capability be acceptable to the American people, and congressional review is therefore indispensable. I am eager to work with the White House and my colleagues across the aisle to provide the American people and our allies abroad with the assurance that Iran will not be allowed to arm itself with a nuclear weapon. However, I am concerned that if the President continues his go- it-alone approach, Americans may not like the deal that emerges. King v. Burwell Mr. President, I wish to pivot to an issue that is being considered over in the Supreme Court this week. Tomorrow the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges the extension of ObamaCare subsidies to States with Federal exchanges. The President's health care law states that individuals who enroll through ``an exchange established by the State'' are entitled to receive subsidies to help with their premium payments. ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber made it clear this was intended to give States an incentive to create their own exchanges. At an event in 2012, he told the audience: [W]hat's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits--but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. That is from ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber back in 2012. In the wake of the health care law's passage, however, States made it clear they were reluctant to take on the costs and burdens associated with ObamaCare. More than two-thirds of the States declined to set up their own exchanges, and the Obama administration provided the subsidies to those enrolled on Federal exchanges despite there being no authority in the law for it to do so, and despite the concerns expressed by members of the President's own administration who were doubtful about the legality of such a move. The administration's decision to push forward with the subsidies despite the lack of legal authority could have serious consequences for millions of Americans. If the Supreme Court finds the Obama administration overstepped its authority, 5 million Americans could lose their ObamaCare subsidies. I recently joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to the head of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury Secretary to ask what the administration's plan is for dealing with the aftermath of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling. The administration's answer: Nothing. That is right. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell told us the administration has no administrative plans for what it would do in the event of an unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court. In fact, the administration declined to even warn Americans enrolling this year of what could happen if the Supreme Court found the administration was illegally providing subsidies. Clearly the millions of Americans who could lose their health care premium subsidy, thanks to the administration's abuse of its authority, need a solution, and Republicans have been working on solutions. The junior Senator from Nebraska has put forward a plan to use the 1985 COBRA law to extend temporary health care assistance to these Americans for 18 months. Other Republicans--Senator Hatch from Utah, Senator Alexander from Tennessee, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming--have offered their own plan which would also provide temporary financial assistance to affected Americans while they recover from the loss of the subsidies. The chairmen of the House Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce Committees have released a roadmap for replacing ObamaCare with market-based solutions. Their plan allows States to opt out of many ObamaCare mandates while maintaining protections for Americans. It would also make refundable tax credits available to Americans who lost their subsidies. All of these plans seek to replace the broken ObamaCare system with real health care reform that would lower costs, expand access to care, and to put patients, not the government, in charge of their health care decisions. We don't need this court case to demonstrate that ObamaCare has been a massive failure. We already had the unexpected tax bills, the higher premiums, the loss of doctors and hospitals, the health care plans Americans were not allowed to keep, the law's negative effect on employment, and I could go on and on. This court case underscores what all the other law's problems have demonstrated: ObamaCare is not fixing the health care challenges facing our country. If anything, it is making them worse. ObamaCare has been tried, and it has been found wanting. It is time to repeal this law and to replace it with health care reforms that will actually fix the problems in our health care system and improve affordability and access for all Americans. Five years of ObamaCare is long enough. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a subcommittee hearing entitled ``U.S. Human Exploration Goals and Commercial Space Competitiveness.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Review of Resources, Priorities and Programs in the FY 2016 State Department Budget Request.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform, Growth and Efficiency.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 24, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.