Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I wish to honor CAPT Lawson Almand, JAGC, USN, Retired, a son of North Carolina who is retiring after 39 years of Active Duty and civilian service to our Nation with the U.S. Navy. CAPT Almand is a native of Cary, NC. He received his B.A. in linguistics from the University of California, San Diego, a J.D. from the University of Puget Sound, and an LL.M. in international and comparative law from the National Law Center, The George Washington University. In 1976, CAPT Almand began his dedicated service to our Nation as a commissioned officer in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. During the next 32 years, Captain Almand served on Active Duty in a wide variety of roles, traveling throughout the United States and overseas. His assignments included Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam; Naval Support Office, La Maddalena, Sardinia, Italy; Naval Legal Service Office, Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines; commander, Submarine Group 10, Kings Bay, GA; commander, Patrol Wings, U.S. Pacific Fleet; executive officer and commanding officer, Naval Legal Service Office Southwest, San Diego, CA; commanding officer, Naval Legal Service Office Northeast, Groton, CT; director, Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, Newport, RI; professor and associate dean, College of International and Security Studies, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch, Germany; force judge advocate, Naval Surface Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, San Diego; and Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General, General Litigation Division. Following his retirement from Active Duty in July 2007, CAPT Almand continued his superlative service to the Navy as a civilian, serving for another 7 years as Deputy Director of the Administrative Law Division in the Office of the Judge Advocate General in the Pentagon. For his outstanding service to our Nation, CAPT Almand earned numerous awards, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, and the Superior Civilian Service Award. I commend CAPT Almand for his commitment to our country and the sacrifices he made on its behalf. On the occasion of his retirement from the Federal service, I thank him and his family for his honorable service to our Nation and wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes a distinguished career.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a subject matter I touched on about a month ago regarding current trade negotiations. I don't blame elected officials for pushing legislation, policy proposals, or ideas that further their home State's interests. In fact, I think that is one of the first things we should do here, that is, to make sure the folks who elected us know we are standing up for them. But I also think there comes a time when we need to recognize that the long-term interests of our collective constituents are at risk, even when we are doing short term things that put us at risk. This is why I have decided that I wish to speak a little bit about the current status of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP negotiations. I learned overnight and this morning that the American team of the TPP negotiators has tabled language which would carve certain American- grown commodities out of the protections of the trade deal's investor- state dispute settlement--or ISDS--mechanism. By carving out tobacco from the TPP, the President and his administration are discriminating against an entire agriculture commodity, setting a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements. I rise today to defend the farmers, the manufacturers, and the exporters from the discriminatory treatment in this proposed trade agreement. What they have decided to do right now relates to tobacco. Today it happens to be about tobacco, but I will do this for any crop now and for any agriculture commodity for any State going forward in the future. This is not just about tobacco. This is about American values and fairness. In July I stood on this same floor and I discussed this same issue. I went out of my way to emphasize that I believe free trade is good. That is why I voted for trade promotion authority. A balanced trade agreement will benefit all of us. I also recognize that the United States over the years has tried to do more with these agreements than merely haggle for market access or tariff reductions. Over the past 30 years, the United States has consistently imported certain components of our American system into these agreements, including due process protections, dispute settlement procedures, and the protection of private property rights. These are now standard terms that those who engage with the United States at the bargaining table know are not negotiable. They never have been--that is, until yesterday. Our negotiators have now concluded that while some investors are entitled to equal treatment under the law, others aren't. What our negotiators have proposed sets the stage for the remainder of this negotiation and for those deals which will be negotiated in the future, such as the agreement with Europe and future agreements with African nations. Our trade agreements are now apparently nothing more than laboratories for setting partisan policies and picking winners and losers. If we condone this kind of behavior, how can we be assured it will ever end? As I stated in July, once we allow an entire sector to be treated unfairly, the question is, who is next? Is it the beef industry in Nebraska? Is it the pork industry in States such as Iowa and North Carolina? Is it the poultry industry in Delaware, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Georgia? We need not look far to find protracted, heated policy debates about any number of issues that affect trade--the consumption of coal, energy exploration practices, the use of pesticides, the use of biotechnology. The right place for those debates is in bodies like this one, not in trade agreements. The wrong place is what is going on right now with our trade negotiators and the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I hold a sincere belief that unfair treatment for one agricultural commodity significantly heightens the risk that more unfair treatment for another commodity lurks around the corner. I have no choice but to use this forum to make two very important points and make it very clear to the negotiators as we reach the final stages of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. First, I would like to speak to process concerns. A failure to abide by the process and the terms governing the process as established by the TPA is unacceptable. When I state that I have no choice but to use the Senate floor to make these points, I mean it. A full 8 weeks ago, I wrote to our Trade Ambassador cautioning him about this course of action and requesting that he consult with me as he was statutorily obligated in the TPA to do. To explain to those in the Gallery, we passed a bill that said we wanted to provide the President with trade promotion authority. We wanted to empower representatives of the United States to negotiate with trading partners who are in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We wanted to support that, over the objections of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We also set certain ground rules for being able to do that. They had to review with Congress some of the proposed items of the agreement that may be the most contentious about intellectual property, about the carve-out. But to date I have had absolutely no additional communication from the Ambassador or his designees. In other words, it has been lights out. In fact, I would ask any Member of the Senate whether they honestly know what currently is in the TPP agreement that is being, in my mind, pushed forward and pushed to a point where we will just have a simple up-or-down vote. I think this abuse of the process is in violation of the letter and the spirit of the TPA. The last time anybody spoke to me regarding this particular provision that has to do with the carve-out, I was told it is something our partners were insisting on. The actions of the last 24 hours--namely, that the United States actually tabled the language in question--really raises serious doubts about that assertion. Second, I want to speak to the growing view that the TPP is not being negotiated in accordance with the substance of the TPA. The failure to abide by the substance of the provisions of TPA puts the privileged status of the proposed treaty at risk, and it is something I am going to spend a lot of time focusing on. I would remind this body that we have already, in a bipartisan fashion, disavowed language that treats some products differently. In the TPA, Congress said that opportunities for U.S. agriculture exports must be ``substantially equivalent to opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets.'' Congress has stated that dispute settlement mechanisms must be available across the board, not selectively. I voted to give the President trade promotion authority to allow trade agreements such as the TPP to move through Congress in a quick, orderly, and responsible fashion. Congress granted the President trade promotion authority with the mutual understanding that his administration would negotiate deals in good faith. I did not vote to give the President and the administration the freedom to indiscriminately choose when fairness should be applied and when it should be ignored. If the President chooses to arbitrarily ignore TPA provisions he doesn't like, then Congress is not obliged to honor the fast-track status. If any carve-out is ultimately included in the TPP, I will work hard to defeat it. I might add that our own majority leader has expressed concerns over this and has expressed the same sentiment to the trade negotiation team. In closing, I wish to offer this to anyone who believes my sticking up for tobacco or this particular provision or for equal treatment and American values is shortsighted: I want you to know that I would do it for beef in Nebraska, for pork in Iowa, for poultry in Delaware, for any farmer who is being unfairly carved out as a result of the administration's desire to put provisions in a trade agreement that simply shouldn't be there, and which have not been there historically. So to the Members of the Senate and to the American people and the farmers out there, I want you to know I am going to continue this fight. I am going to continue this fight not because it satisfies a home constituency, but because I intend to protect the free trade ideals that have made the United States the most desirable trading partner in the world. Thank you, Madam President. I also want you to know that I think there is a growing sense of concern--whether it is Senator Hatch, Senator McConnell, or a number of other Senators--that regardless of how they feel about this particular issue with tobacco, the provision in such a trade agreement is unacceptable. I hope our trade negotiators recognize that we are focusing a lot of attention on this, and they risk putting together a good trade agreement that we would all like to get behind as a result. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2690.

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the great State of Alaska for his comments. I wish to be associated with those comments. I also thank him not only for his service in the Senate but for his service in the Marines. I stand here today heartbroken over the failure to advance a bill that would protect the lives of unborn babies--babies who are old enough, who, with proper care, can survive when born at this age. Many of my colleagues have spoken regarding all that we know about the science of fetal development--how unborn babies feel pain, when they feel pain, the related neurological data, and so on. Others will tell us that the United States is out of step with the overwhelming majority of other nations on this policy. Others will show poll numbers that demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of Americans, especially women, think this policy is a good policy--the policy that was voted down in this Chamber today. But we don't need to know all that to know what is right and what is wrong. We know what is right. Any of us who have ever watched our wife's belly grow, as I did with the miracle of my son and daughter; any of us who have ever experienced the excitement before learning the results of a prenatal test; any of us who have seen an ultrasound or attended a baby shower, we all know. We know because of the hundreds and thousands of friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers whose own baby stories we have watched over our lives. The stories of successful deliveries, the complications, the joys, the tragedies, and all of these stories--the beautiful stories and the bittersweet stories--have taught us the truth about the unborn. We all know. We don't need to be scientists to understand what the science can tell us. So I wish to tell some stories that illustrate what this bill, which was voted down today in this Chamber, is about. I want to start with Samuel. As early as 1999, we were doing fetal surgeries here in the United States. Samuel's parents, Julie and Alex, were given the terrible news that their unborn son had permanent nerve damage from an opening in his spine due to spina bifida. Doctors said that half of all babies with spina bifida were aborted, but Julie and Alex chose a different path for Samuel. This was at 21 weeks. Samuel was operated on in utero. Today he is all grown up. Samuel said that he believes God sent him to Earth to help stop abortion. Then there is Elijah. When April Leffingwell's ultrasound at 20 weeks revealed a life- threatening tumor growing in Elijah's left lung, she knew his life was in grave danger. Thankfully, this fateful diagnosis was not the end of the story. Instead, Elijah's life was saved by an innovative fetal surgery performed at just 25 weeks. During the surgery, 3 years ago, 5- month-old baby Elijah was given anesthesia to protect him from pain. He was then partially removed from his mother's womb, and the life- threatening tumor the size of an orange was removed. Elijah's primary surgeon at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia said that he would have died if the operation were not done before birth. Now, several years later, after a challenging beginning, Elijah is a healthy and very active toddler. Here is another story, about Micah. Micah's mom Danielle went into labor and delivered Micah when he was just 22 weeks old. This is little Micah shortly after delivery as shown in this picture. She was given the worst of news--that her son would not survive. But Micah received state-of-the-art care and spent the next 4 months in the neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU. Micah's parents kept vigil at his side and watched all the developmental milestones, which should have been reached in utero, be reached in the artificial environment in the NICU. And slowly, day by day, he made it. He thrived and is 3 years old. Micah and his family are here today at the Senate. I met them earlier today. He actually gave me this band that says ``Miracles for Micah.'' Surely my colleagues can see what Micah's parents see; that their son was just as precious at 22 weeks as he is today at 3 years old. There are more stories. Some of us remember former Philadelphia Eagles player Vaughn Hebron. Vaughn and his wife Kim were given the news that their twins, 5 months old in utero, were facing what is called twin-transfusion--a life-threatening condition. Doctors said there was a 70-percent chance that one or both of the twins would die, but Vaughn and his wife chose to fight for their boys. They received state-of-the-art care and both boys are now healthy teenagers. All of these children--the Hebron twins, Micah, Elijah, Samuel--there is only one difference between them and the babies aborted, dismembered, and sold by Planned Parenthood; the only difference is that these children were wanted and welcomed. If they are wanted and welcome, we fight like mad to save them. We throw everything at them that science and medicine can possibly do. We save their lives and we create miracles every day. We need this bill to protect those poor babies who are unwanted and unwelcome. We don't strip born children of their right to life and protection just because their parents don't want them. We take care of them at taxpayer expense. We try to help their parents support them. We provide health care for them. If their parents will not or can't raise them, we seek adoptive families for them. But if they are a few months, even a few days or a few minutes younger, our law denies them the opportunity to grow, to learn, and to become the bright-eyed, world- changing children we all cherish and protect. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think this one says it better than anything any of us will say on this Senate floor. This is a baby in utero around 20 weeks. There is simply no arguing that this is a baby. At this age, she is about 10 ounces, about 10 inches long--about the size of a big banana. A baby this age is practicing swallowing for the first time. She is moving. Her skin is thickening up so it is starting to lose that translucent look. A good fraction of the babies who are delivered prematurely at this age survive. A few weeks later, almost all of them survive. The bill we voted on today would have protected babies from this age and older--when they can feel pain, when they look like humans in photographs and sonograms, and when they are kicking around in their mama's bellies. Although we didn't advance this bill today, we must not give up. I am not giving up on my colleagues because I believe justice can still win out. This bill must eventually pass. History will clothe us in disgrace if we fail to do so. The law should protect these children. Nobody put it better than the late great children's author Dr. Seuss when he said: ``A person's a person, no matter how small.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, as we speak, there are American trade negotiators in Hawaii from the Pacific Rim and South America negotiating the final terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. I rise today to speak about an element of those negotiations which I find troubling and which I believe, if it goes on its current path, will produce a gross injustice that will be harmful to American job creators and could potentially threaten the passage or ratification of the TPP. I understand that the current proposal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership calls for discriminatory treatment of tobacco--specifically singling out an entire industry. It is an industry that is vitally important to my home State of North Carolina. Tobacco continues to be vitally important among North Carolinian agricultural exports, and the only path to sustaining this industry is to preserve the place for the American leaf in the world. The industry supports more than 22,000 jobs in North Carolina, my home State. I rise today to defend farmers, manufacturers, and exporters from discriminatory treatment in our trade agreements. Today it happens to be tobacco, but I will do this for any crop for as long as I am in the Senate. I am well aware that many States aren't touched by tobacco farming or tobacco product manufacturing, but this is not just about tobacco; this is about American values and fairness. I believe free trade is good, and a balanced free trade benefits all parties. For those who think free trade is bad for America, I don't agree. When America and Americans compete on a level playing field, we win the vast majority of the time. It is what we do. But the United States, over the years, has tried to do more with these agreements than just haggle for market access and tariff productions. Over the past 30 years, the United States has commonly negotiated what is called the investor-state dispute settlement--or ISDS--language in a number of international agreements. The ISDS provisions are fairly simple. They give someone who believes their trade agreement rights have been violated by another government trading partner the ability to bring a claim against that government before an international arbitration panel. All kinds of offenses can be addressed through the ISDS process-- protecting American-owned businesses by requiring our trading partners to meet minimum standards of treatment under international law; protecting American-owned businesses from having their property taken away without payment or adequate compensation; and protecting American- owned businesses from discriminatory, unfair, or arbitrary treatment. That is a fundamental protection. If these sound like American ideals, it is because they are. American ingenuity, combined with these values and ideals, has produced the world's greatest economy, the American economy. Regions of the world that do not share the same views of due process, equality under the law, and protection of private property rights would do well to follow our model. It will make them a better trading partner, and it will help their economies thrive. Yet, even the U.S. negotiators apparently want to be selective in applying these ideals, and that is really the root of the concern I have with the discussions going on now in Hawaii. We cannot afford to be selective when it comes to fairness. Our negotiators have concluded that while some investors are entitled to equal treatment under the law, others aren't. It is odd to me that this would be the posture of any nation, but it is particularly troubling that this is the current posture of the negotiators who were responsible for negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is ironic that the ideal of equal treatment and due process is being peddled with our trading partners as equal treatment and due process for everyone but some members of the minority. So let's say, my fellow Senators, that you are not from a State that is harmed by the current negotiations. You may feel comfortable that this could never happen to you, to a sector in your State's economy, but I believe you should be worried. The current proposal on the TPP creates an entirely new precedent, a precedent that will no doubt become the norm for future trade agreements where the negotiators get to pick and choose winners and losers and American businesses and American industries will suffer as a result. Once we allow an entire sector to be treated unfairly in trade agreements, the question is, Who is next? I hold a sincere belief that unfair treatment for one agricultural commodity significantly heightens the risk that more unfair treatment for another commodity lurks right around the corner. I have not spoken with a single organization, agricultural or otherwise, that believes this sets a good precedent--quite the contrary. I encourage my colleagues to speak to their State's agricultural community and simply ask them what they think about setting this kind of standard. To my fellow Senators--and, incidentally, I should say for those of you in the Gallery, we are working today; we are just outside of the Gallery. I know this is kind of like showing up at the zoo and one of your favorite animals being off of an exhibit. But they are out working; they will be back at about 1:45. To get back to the script, if you believe that this unfair treatment is OK because it is about tobacco and that it is a fair outcome, I think you ought to think again because I will remind you--and our fellow Senators need to understand this--that Congress has spoken on this issue. We exist to make sure we take care of the voice that may not be heard, the minority who may be cast aside because of some agenda or because of it just being an easy negotiating tactic. But in this particular case, Congress has spoken loudly. I will remind my Members that Congress has said opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports must be ``substantially equivalent to opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets.'' Now, with this trade agreement, if you have a trading partner agree with the behavior or decisions made in the United States, they are going to be subject to due process. But this trade agreement would actually allow our trading partners to not allow us to be held to that same standard in their country of jurisdiction and not go to international arbitration. Congress has stated that dispute settlement mechanisms must be available across the board, not selectively. I also voted to give the President trade promotion authority to allow trade agreements like the TPP to move through Congress in a quick, orderly, and responsible process. That is the process we are going through right now. I did not vote to give our negotiators the freedom to indiscriminately choose when fairness should be applied and when it shouldn't be applied. The Congress has already spoken. I hope you will at least share the expectation that our negotiations carry out our will. I applaud the efforts of the U.S. negotiators. I know it is difficult work, and I congratulate them for getting closer to completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I hope, however, that they will consider the risk of losing support for the Senate to ratify the agreement. In closing, I would offer this to anyone who believes my sticking up for tobacco or for equal treatment and American values is shortsighted: I want you to know that I would do this for any commodity, any category, and any industry. I hope our trade negotiators will work hard to ensure that American values are upheld in the final agreement they bring before Congress, and that goes for language in the entire agreement, even that which appears in the annexes and the footnotes. I, for one--and I think many of my colleagues--am concerned with the current status of the trade negotiations in this particular area. There are a number of good things in it. This needs to be worked out. And I will not support and I will work hard against any trade agreement that departs from our core values. Veterans Health Care

Mr. TILLIS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have come to talk about what I think we have reached here--a tipping point in terms of President Obama's legacy. Recently, Jimmy Carter emphatically charged that President Obama has weakened us and brought us less respect everywhere in the world. When President Carter makes a statement such as that, I don't think President Obama should be spiking the football in the Rose Garden. Why do you think President Carter made those statements? Maybe he has looked at the legacy over the last 6 years, as many of the American people have. Ukraine is on fire. China is threatening its neighbors. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. ISIS is massacring Christians and Muslims with genocidal savagery the likes of which we haven't seen since the Second World War. The Jewish people are facing the greatest threat since the Holocaust. The President got this deal with the ayatollahs, no matter how dangerous and no matter how destabilizing the final accord is. He has claimed a victory, and the media vanguards are right behind him, and he is going to late-night comedy cable shows to build his case. Ladies and gentlemen, this is no laughing matter. You are going to hear a lot of speeches over the next few weeks--in the 60 days we have to review this deal. There are going to be a lot of technical terms, a lot of things that quite honesty some Members of Congress don't fully understand. But I hope that over the next 60 days we will be able to communicate to the American people in a way that they understand why this is a very dangerous deal. Here are some questions I hope you will look into and form your own opinion. One question: Is there truly a dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program? I have looked at the summary of the agreement. I have not read the full text yet. I will be doing that this week. But it is very clear this is not a matter of whether Iran can have a nuclear weapon; it is a matter of when they can have a nuclear weapon. That is not dismantlement; that is scheduling. There is another one. I think my colleague from Indiana just spoke about it. It has to do with inspections. We use terms like ``snapback'' and everything else, but let's put this in very simple terms. Imagine that the police in your community suspected there was a criminal enterprise in some house. Imagine that instead of being able to get a warrant and then quickly go and knock on the door and identify that criminal activity, the police would send a letter to the criminal saying: In the next 4 or 5 weeks, 3 or 4 weeks, we are going to do a surprise inspection on your house. What is the likelihood that criminal presence or that criminal activity is going to be there? That is the nature of the inspections regime with the nation that still continues to chant ``Death to America.'' They are not a good player. They are not a good actor. Giving them time to prepare for a so-called snap inspection makes no sense to me, but that is what is in this deal, and it is written out in plain English. Another question is this: Why hasn't the President done something as basic as have the Iranian people--or the Iranian leadership, I should say; this is not about the people, it is about the leadership--show good faith by releasing American prisoners in Iran? As far as the ballistic missile program, ask the President, ask the people who negotiated this agreement: Will Iran have a ballistic missile program? The answer is yes. They actually have backorders for missiles that could reach Europe. Over time, they will develop a program that will reach the United States. This agreement has no treatment for this. Ask them if they will dismantle the Iran terror network. The Iran terror network operates throughout the world. The Iran terror network is funded literally through the Government of Iran. Over $300 million has been identified by Canadian intelligence agencies as having been funneled to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and a number of others. Are they going to dismantle it? No. As a matter of fact, I believe that with the sanctions being removed, it is going to provide them more money to fund those networks. Why would the President release $140 billion in sanctions? Why would we do that? Why would we provide money to a nation that says they need money but they can spend money on terror and a number of other things-- not education, not fixing roads, not better health care for Iranians, but spreading terror throughout the world? Why on Earth would we give them more money to do that? The President has given birth to the Middle East nuclear arms race as well. Ask yourself this question: Do you think it is likely that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and other Gulf States are going to stand idly by when a hostile regime is going to have a nuclear capability over some period of time? Of course not. They are going to do what they need to do to feel like they are protecting their citizens. It will give rise to an arms race. We will be taking about this if this deal goes through I think in my tenure as a Senator over the next 5 years. President Obama has willfully ignored 40 years of hostility from Tehran. The President may not recognize that we are at war, but the Iranians certainly do. They say in public statements that they are going to continue their fight against America. They are a chief sponsor of global terror. They have never stepped back from their desire to obliterate the United States and our great friend and ally Israel. This is the Obama doctrine. The President sees America as the problem. He views Israel as an obstacle to peace and Iran as another oppressed constituency with legitimate grievances against the West. In fact, so much so, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the mullahs--the leaders of Iran--the President was silent. The old American alliances are collapsing in confusion and fear, and the only answer from the administration seems to be a clear path toward Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. In his 1987 State of the Union Address, President Ronald Reagan warned: Our approach is not to seek agreement for agreement's sake but to settle only for agreements that truly enhance our national security and that of our allies. We will never put our security at risk or that of our allies just to reach an agreement. . . . No agreement is better than a bad agreement. So there you have it. Our allies--Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt--are worried. Tehran is on the march and moving closer to a nuclear weapon. Charles Krauthammer noted, ``The one great hope for Middle East peace, the strategic anchor for 40 years [the United States] is giving the green light to terror.'' Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think that is a legacy anyone should be proud of.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, we were sworn in--you and I both--in January, and I know we have both gone to our States and traveled across our States to get an idea of the pressing problems our States and our Nation face. One of the areas I have focused most of my attention on is veterans affairs, particularly the hospitals and the services we are providing veterans across the State. I am concerned that we have a problem with priorities. I am concerned that maybe the focus isn't where it needs to be to make sure we take care of the most pressing problems for our veterans. Whether it is the Choice Act, whether it is just providing ambulatory care, PTSD, mental health, or a number of other things, we have shortages, and we need to get the Veterans' Administration focused on solving the most pressing problems. I decided we needed to produce some amendments that would have been heard today in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for a bill that would affect the VA. Why would I want to do that? Because when out of the blue a proposal for some $500 million in unanticipated costs could potentially be considered today, I get worried. And I will talk later about the various things that make me worry about what would be lost if we were to reprioritize half a billion dollars, with all the things we already have on our plate that deal with the VA. But the amendments some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking about earlier today were my responsibility. They referred--I guess in deference--to Republicans. The reality is that they were amendments that came out of my office, and I want to talk a little about what these amendments were. They were referred to as political games, but three of them were very focused on good government. One of them was to make sure we do not implement policy that moves a priority or moves something ahead of the line of the other critical priorities we have for our veterans. All it said was that we would not fund this project until we had certification that the most pressing priorities--which I will talk about in a few minutes--had actually been addressed. Another amendment was just about reporting--how does this project work? All too often we pass policies here and we never measure the results. That is what is wrong with Washington. We don't think through the full consequences of a lot of the policies we implement. So it was simply to provide a reporting mechanism so we could follow up on this policy and see what it costs and the real benefits over time. The last amendment is something I know the Presiding Officer has problems with because he is a very successful businessman. In business, we would never think about balancing the books for this year and next year based on what the business is going to do 10 years from now, but that is exactly what nearly half of the $500 million that was to be used for this bill would have done. It is reaching all the way out to 2025 to assume that some savings achieved there could be used to pay for something today. That is not the way we need to be budgeting in Washington. We have an $18 trillion deficit--or I should say debt--and a lot of that is this kind of thinking that has been going on in Washington for too long--and I might add, under Democratic and Republican leadership. We have to change. The other amendments were fairly straightforward too. So three amendments on good government and accountability and responsible budgeting. The other three were things I think most Americans would agree with. One would simply prevent taxpayer funds from being used--the whole bill, I should have mentioned, has to do with providing in vitro fertilization coverage for veterans. One of the amendments simply said: You cannot use taxpayer funds to do any form of sex selection with respect to determining which embryo may be able to come to life versus the other ones that couldn't. Another amendment has to do with something as simple as not having the VA work with organizations that take the organs of human aborted babies and sell them. Those are the sorts of amendments we were talking about. It wasn't to kill in vitro fertilization. I know of many friends and others who have actually benefited and brought babies into the world through in vitro fertilization. This was about making sure we did it in a responsible manner. But the heart of my problem goes back to the long list of broken promises that sooner or later this Congress has to fulfill for our veterans. Let's talk a little about those. We are talking about taking half a billion dollars and spending it on some priority that is not even on the books today. What about these priorities? I worry about the 120,000 claims currently in the VA backlog. These are people who served our country who are looking for medical help and who are in the backlog waiting for treatment. What about that priority? What about the 22 veterans on average a day committing suicide, most of them related to PTSD? We passed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act as a first step toward trying to address this chronic problem. At the time we passed it, we all acknowledged that the funding we gave it wasn't enough, but it was a start. What about additional funding for men and women who are suffering from various traumas they experience in service to our Nation? That is a priority we need to be absolutely certain is provided for. I also worry about the unemployment problems. I think 75 percent of the Iran and Afghanistan veterans are dealing with unemployment once they transition from military service into the private sector. What about initiatives to get them back to work, take care of them and their families? I could go on and on. At Camp Lejeune in my great State of North Carolina, we have identified something that occurred over many years--exposure to toxic substances which have been linked to cancer. I had a meeting just last week with the Secretary of the VA. Only 13 percent of the requests for coverage are being fulfilled. We think it should be closer to 50 or 60. What about the funding for those folks who contracted cancer as a result of toxic substances at Camp Lejeune? Don't they deserve to be somewhere higher in the priority list? I could go on and on. There are the wait times, the critical medical services they need. Today, the promises we made to veterans should be our top priority. At some point in time, it may make sense to add another half a billion dollars for this medical treatment that has been proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle but not until we are absolutely certain that the promises we have already made are going to be fulfilled. That is all we attempted to do today. In some respects, I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle considered it political. I don't consider it political. I don't think it is political when you are trying to live within your means or making sure the policies you are implementing actually work the way you intended or when you are actually spending money over the next year or two versus 10 years from now. I think that is responsible government. The gimmicks and the old rhetoric in this Chamber need to stop. We need to start focusing on fulfilling promises first and foremost to the men and women who have served our country bravely and defended our freedom. That is what my proposed amendments were about, and that is what they will be about if this measure ever comes up again because if I can fulfill no other promise, my promise to the men and women who have served this Nation will be paramount in all the things I do in my service here over the next 5\1/2\ years in the U.S. Senate. This was a threat to my being able to fulfill that promise, and I am glad we are going to be able to move on. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am introducing the Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act, which would exclude payments from State eugenics compensation programs from consideration in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal public benefits. My colleagues, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Tom Carper, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner have agreed to cosponsor the bill. In addition, Congressman Patrick McHenry will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. A dark chapter in American history, eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws were implemented in the first decades of the 20th century by more than 30 States, leading to the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 disabled citizens. Only California and Virginia sterilized more citizens than North Carolina under these laws, though North Carolina was considered as having the most aggressive State-run program. In 2013, North Carolina became the first State in the country to enact legislation to compensate living victims of these forced- sterilization laws. Most of the victims of the State-run eugenics program were poor and disadvantaged individuals and many remain so to this day. Therefore, concerns have been raised in both States that the compensation provided to the victims could unintentionally render them ineligible under Federal law to continue receiving Federal benefits that are subject to income thresholds. The bill introduced today would specifically exclude all payments from any State eugenics compensation program from being used in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, any public benefits from the Federal government. The implementation of State-run eugenics and sterilization programs represent a dark and shameful chapter in our Nation's history. While North Carolina and Virginia have recently created State compensation programs to help victims recover from horrible wrongs that have been perpetrated against them in the past, Federal laws can unintentionally punish victims who receive eugenics compensation by preventing them from receiving Federal benefits. This bipartisan legislation will ensure that will not happen. I wish to offer a special, much deserved thank you to my friend and former colleague, North Carolina State representative Larry Womble, who has provided extraordinary leadership in the decades-long fight for justice for the living victims of North Carolina's eugenics program.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am introducing the Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act, which would exclude payments from State eugenics compensation programs from consideration in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal public benefits. My colleagues, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Tom Carper, Senator Tim Kaine, and Senator Mark Warner have agreed to cosponsor the bill. In addition, Congressman Patrick McHenry will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. A dark chapter in American history, eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws were implemented in the first decades of the 20th century by more than 30 States, leading to the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 disabled citizens. Only California and Virginia sterilized more citizens than North Carolina under these laws, though North Carolina was considered as having the most aggressive State-run program. In 2013, North Carolina became the first State in the country to enact legislation to compensate living victims of these forced- sterilization laws. Most of the victims of the State-run eugenics program were poor and disadvantaged individuals and many remain so to this day. Therefore, concerns have been raised in both States that the compensation provided to the victims could unintentionally render them ineligible under Federal law to continue receiving Federal benefits that are subject to income thresholds. The bill introduced today would specifically exclude all payments from any State eugenics compensation program from being used in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, any public benefits from the Federal government. The implementation of State-run eugenics and sterilization programs represent a dark and shameful chapter in our Nation's history. While North Carolina and Virginia have recently created State compensation programs to help victims recover from horrible wrongs that have been perpetrated against them in the past, Federal laws can unintentionally punish victims who receive eugenics compensation by preventing them from receiving Federal benefits. This bipartisan legislation will ensure that will not happen. I wish to offer a special, much deserved thank you to my friend and former colleague, North Carolina State representative Larry Womble, who has provided extraordinary leadership in the decades-long fight for justice for the living victims of North Carolina's eugenics program.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk about the imminent decision of the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. I will get to that a little bit later in my speech, but I wish to start by talking about how we got here. I would like to review what Americans were told were the reasons for ObamaCare. It was supposed to help the 15 million people who are currently uninsured to get covered with quality, affordable insurance. Everyone else, we were promised, would be left alone. Remember that promise: If you like your doctor, you can keep him. If you like your health care, you can keep it. That is the first of several broken promises ObamaCare has ultimately produced. I will go through a few this afternoon. Let's take a look at what has happened since ObamaCare was implemented and where we stand. Most of the uninsured nationwide are-- and they were prior to ObamaCare--working families; 71 percent in 2013. They either couldn't afford the cost-sharing of their employer plan or their employer didn't offer a plan. Of those who got insurance under ObamaCare, too many were working families who actually didn't get private insurance under ObamaCare; they were ultimately forced into Medicaid, which is supposed to be a safety net, not a permanent solution for working families. Is Medicaid the quality, affordable insurance that we all want for Americans and that people thought they were getting with ObamaCare? I don't think so. The provider payment rates in Medicaid are so low that many doctors refuse to see patients and participate in the plans. I don't really begrudge the doctors and the health care providers for this because the cost of care oftentimes exceeds the Medicaid reimbursement rates, and the redtape that comes with it absolutely is destroying the administrative side of health care. That is why doctors don't participate in the plan. That is why the doctors are not available for the people who actually need good, quality health care. It is not for lack of investment though. States are drowning in unaffordable Medicaid Programs that eat more and more of their budgets at the expense of other essential services. States are throwing everything they can and then some at Medicaid, but it is still unacceptable in terms of cost, quality, and access. That is exactly why North Carolina refused to participate in ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion. I was speaker of the house in North Carolina at the time. We know that if we are going to solve the health care problem, it has to be a real solution. We have to bring back a vibrant, robust, patient-centered, private insurance system, customized for our State rather than dictated by bureaucrats in Washington. My constituents deserve a plan that pays doctors fairly so that provider networks are big enough to ensure that people don't get turned away at the door. Herding more of our hard-working, proud neighbors into a substandard welfare plan designed to be a temporary safety net is no solution at all, but that is exactly what ObamaCare has done. The President even brags about it. In North Carolina, prior to the implementation of ObamaCare, there were some 1.9 million of our citizens who were uninsured. Who are these people? Ten percent were already Medicaid eligible before ObamaCare. Most of them are children. We could have enrolled them without ever passing ObamaCare and disrupting and destroying health care for everyone else. About a third were people who were eligible for subsidies on the exchange--almost half a million. So did all of those folks get help? It might look as though they did. After all, 459,000 have signed up through the Federal exchange in North Carolina. But wait. Are those the same people, the same ones who were insured before ObamaCare? It turns out that even more than that-- 473,000 people--had their plans canceled by ObamaCare. Again, 473,000 North Carolinians received a letter saying: The Affordable Care Act has determined you can't keep your plan. They didn't like it, even though those who were insured were satisfied with their plans. This was a nationwide trend. The Associated Press reported that 4.7 million people had their plans canceled because of ObamaCare. There was such an outcry that the President, by Executive fiat, actually instructed the insurers to continue to allow the plans for a period of time. So how many people lost their plan this time is still not clear. But what is clear is that the individual mandate is going to cause problems down the road because those who lost their plan or who will lose their plan, are going to be required by law to buy a Washington- approved insurance plan no matter how unaffordable ObamaCare has made insurance. Again, in North Carolina, more people received cancellation notices for plans they liked than have actually signed up for ObamaCare. Between the half million whose plans were initially canceled by ObamaCare and the 1.9 million people who were already uninsured prior to ObamaCare, we should end up with a wash--with no change in the uninsured figures for my State of North Carolina, but, actually, we don't. The uninsured rate has gone down 2.7 percent--from 19.9 percent in 2013 to 17.2 percent in 2014--after the first full year of the ObamaCare implementation, so roughly equivalent to about 200,000 people in North Carolina. But were all of those people getting quality, affordable plans on the exchange as promised by ObamaCare? Hardly. The reason is Medicaid enrollment. The majority of the people who the administration claims ObamaCare covered have been those who went to the exchange to get insurance but were then forced to enroll in Medicaid. And when I say forced, I mean forced. The law requires them to have insurance, but the exchange doesn't allow them to buy a private plan if they are eligible for Medicaid. It shows them one option: Medicaid. Well, wait. You said North Carolina didn't expand Medicaid, so how did this happen? It is true. Medicaid enrollment for my State has increased by 300,000 people--the biggest enrollment increase of any of the States that didn't expand Medicaid. What that means is much if not all of the drop in the uninsured rate is due to North Carolinians enrolling in Medicaid through the exchange. These are the same people who were eligible before ObamaCare was ever passed. Nationally, last year, nearly 90 percent of ObamaCare's net coverage gain was through Medicaid. A study from MIT released in April found that Medicaid enrollees receive much less value from the program than the cost of paying for services. So far, I have been talking about people who were targeted by ObamaCare, including the population of previously uninsured, as well as those who became uninsured because ObamaCare forced them into the exchange. Again, ObamaCare didn't really make a dent in our uninsured numbers--not to this point in North Carolina--and it actually harmed many who were forced onto the exchange. It turns out that ObamaCare is an equal opportunity wrecking ball. It hurt the people it was supposed to help. It forced working families who needed quality, affordable, permanent care into a program that provides the lowest quality access there is--Medicaid. ObamaCare took over and removed the insurance options, the individual market for people who didn't have employer coverage, leaving those Washington-approved ObamaCare plans with increased premiums, increased deductibles, and increased copays. You see, increased coverage doesn't necessarily mean better health care. If you can't afford your plan or you can't find the doctor, then your health care suffers. But that is not all. ObamaCare broke health care for everyone else. Those of us who were supposedly happy with our doctors and happy with our health plans have been affected and will continue to be negatively affected. What about the majority of Americans who actually have insurance through their employer? They haven't necessarily lost coverage yet, but they have been harmed. Despite the President's promise to lower insurance premiums, the average family premium for employer-sponsored coverage has risen $3,500 a year between 2009 and 2014. In North Carolina, during the first full year of the exchange rollout, premium price increases outpaced increases in wages and inflation, losing ground to the working family. Even worse, premium prices in individual insurance markets--a market my daughter was a part of--went up 147 percent as a result of a plan that promised to reduce our health care insurance costs. I know I am not the only one who remembers what President Obama said about ObamaCare. He said the average premiums would go down $2,500. The reality is they have gone up an average of $3,500 a year. All of this leads to the problem of people having insurance they can't afford, and they are not able to use it because their deductibles and copays are simply too high. Between this group and the people who are now on Medicaid who can't get appointments with the small number of doctors who accept Medicaid, what one gets is a dramatic increase in the use of emergency rooms. That is exactly the opposite of what supporters of ObamaCare predicted. They predicted that emergency room visits would go down. We were told that once everyone was insured under ObamaCare, people could go to their doctors in outpatient settings and not show up at the ER. Instead, people can't afford the copays and deductibles or they can't get an outpatient appointment, so they wait until their problem is critical and end up in the ER. In fact, Kaiser Family Foundation reports that emergency room utilization is up significantly among ObamaCare participants. In a survey of more than 2,000 emergency room doctors, three-quarters of them said emergency room visits have risen since January 1, 2014. Medicaid recipients covered under ObamaCare are struggling to find doctors who will accept their coverage, so they have no choice but to end up at an emergency room, where the costs skyrocket. A spokesman for the Emergency Room Doctors Association, Dr. Howard Mell, noted: There was a grand theory the law would reduce emergency room visits. Well, guess what, it hasn't happened. Visits are going up despite the ACA, and in a lot of cases because of it. One of the most troubling elements of ObamaCare to me is the intergenerational wealth transfer from the young and the poor to the older and the wealthier. When I say ``older,'' I don't mean elderly and frail or the population who may be on Medicare; I am talking about a wealth transfer from young people in their twenties to people like me in their fifties. I would never ask my daughter, who is about to start a career in nursing, to pay for her mother's insurance or for my insurance, neither would any of you or any other American. That is not how parents are wired. But an impersonal law that empowers an impersonal bureaucracy does not have the same moral compass as a parent. For example, ObamaCare's mandates have jacked up premiums for young people to keep premiums down for older people like me. I am not sure ``let's fleece our children and grandchildren'' is a winning talking point, so the supporters of the bill try to hide the truth in Washington-speak. They call this ``age rating bands.'' Another talking point that tends to not fly too well with folks is ``Let's kick seniors off of their Medicare Advantage plans.'' That is exactly what happened in North Carolina late last year. Many who know about Medicare Advantage plans know they are very important and popular among seniors. In my State last year, 57,000 seniors--more than any other State in the Nation--were sent cancellation letters from the Medicare Advantage plans they liked. Many of these seniors were offered a minimum benefit plan with higher copayments and higher premiums instead, all because ObamaCare cut reimbursement for Medicare Advantage plans out of some bizarre but longstanding aversion to the program on the part of some of our friends on the other side of the aisle. I have never understood it. Does Medicare Advantage somehow give seniors too much control, stability, and convenience in their Medicare benefits? I suspect my mom is watching me right now in Nashville, TN. I bet if she was asked that question, she would say no. Just when you think it is really bad, realize that some of the toughest ObamaCare hits haven't even been taken yet. First, the individual mandate penalty. The penalty for not having insurance increases next year to almost $700 per adult or 2.5 percent of one's annual income, whichever is greater. This is a penalty which many people will be surprised to see when they get their tax return and they are expecting this amount and it is $700 or $1,000 less to pay for the mandated care. If an individual's income is $50,000, they will pay a penalty of $1,000. A family with two adults with an income of $50,000 will pay $1,400. When adding a college kid to the mix, the penalty is $2,100. A lot of people are in for a shock when they open up that tax refund and they see the additional hidden costs of ObamaCare on working families. That penalty, however, is still dramatically lower than the out-of-pocket costs of an ObamaCare plan. So we are forcing Americans to pick between bad and worse. Second, the employer mandate and penalty. President Obama knows the devastation the employer mandate will cause not only for businesses but, more importantly, for workers. Employers will be forced to cut workers. They will be forced to reduce wages and drop employer- sponsored health plans altogether and pay the penalty because the penalty will cost less than the mandates will to provide the care, and many employers simply can't afford it. So far, people with employer-sponsored coverage have been harmed only by rising costs and shrinking provider networks, but they haven't for the most part lost their plans yet. The day is coming when the President can no longer delay the employer mandate, and that is when the plans they were promising you can keep will be canceled. We will see a massive disruption in the group market where most North Carolinians get their health insurance. Premiums are going up every year because fewer younger, healthier people are enrolling than projected. This was completely predictable. Young people are no dummies. They know this is a terrible deal for them. As a result, insurance companies recalculate premiums based on the cost of the pool actually enrolled. The largest insurer in my State announced premium hikes for next year in the individual market of at least 26 percent. You know it is a bad thing when I felt better about the fact that our premium increases in North Carolina were only 26 percent because in some States they were upwards of 50 percent, and there is more to come. ObamaCare relies on people paying into the pool to subsidize the sicker and poorer members of the pool. That is how insurance works. But virtually no one is signing up who isn't eligible for the subsidies. CMS released data yesterday showing that 2015 exchange enrollment is 30 percent below projections made just 3 years ago. And of those who do enroll, they are doing it because of the lure of the subsidy. Ninety- three percent of the North Carolinians who are on the exchange have received those subsidies. That means the plans are unaffordable without massive subsidies. Those ineligible for the subsidy don't bother to sign up. That is why we have seen almost no movement in our State for uninsureds. ObamaCare is forcing employers to cut jobs and move full-time workers into part-time positions. New data show a decline in the average hours worked per week by lower wage employees, and many workers are just below that 30-hour threshold, 30 hours per week. I was at a restaurant in North Carolina a couple months back, and I was talking with a manager, who said it was heartbreaking for her to go and talk to a single mom who was able to make ends meet between the tips and her salary at 40 hours a week and tell her that she can now only work 30 hours a week because the restaurant simply cannot afford to be exposed to the mandates. Now you have people who may have been able to make it on 40 hours a week or 45 hours a week having to get two jobs to make ends meet. I hear employers talking about how they are having to call each other to try to work out the schedules for these hard-working folks. The CBO projects that ObamaCare will reduce employment as a result of all this by 2 million full-time equivalent jobs in 2017. President Obama campaigned saying he wouldn't raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. Let's talk a little bit more about that. ObamaCare broke that promise as well by creating or raising 20 different taxes amounting to more than $1 trillion in the first decade. Several taxes directly punished families making less than $250,000 a year. University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan modeled the macroeconomic effects of ObamaCare and estimated that the damage would be twice as large. He expects Obamacare to cause a 3-percent drop in employment and work hours and a 2-percent drop in our gross domestic product and worker income. If he is right, the total loss of worker compensation caused by the President's health care law will exceed $2 trillion between 2017 and 2024. Now let's talk about the King v. Burwell case that has everyone's attention, with the Supreme Court imminently in a position to issue a ruling, probably sometime next week. The question for the Supreme Court is this: Did the President break the law by going around the will of the people in the States that wanted to opt out of establishing a State exchange, like we did in North Carolina? Mr. President, what I just finished was a very long list of broken promises and the fiscal disaster we call ObamaCare. But now I want to talk about the King v. Burwell decision. The question is this: Did the President break the law by going around the will of the people in the States that wanted to opt out of establishing a State exchange, such as North Carolina? I am not interested in litigating this. I am not an attorney; I am a businessman. I will leave the lawyering to others. When I look at King v. Burwell, I don't see a legal battle; I see an opportunity. It may sound trite, but I see hope. The Court may give us the chance of a generation--the chance to fix health care once and for all. We can't fix ObamaCare, but we can fix health care. But here is the thing. We don't come up with the solution ourselves. The press is counting on us to come up with a solution. Others are pressuring us on the other side of the aisle. But here is what I think we need to do. I think we need to look beyond the traditional way of trying to solve health care to a new way, and it starts with something fairly simple--humility. I won't read the definition, but I think it is something that is sometimes missed in Washington. The solution is that we take the power out of Washington and we let the States do it. We give States, which are closer to the people, the chance--the privilege, really--to offer health care solutions that are local, accountable, and affordable. Every State is different. Let's respect those differences. I believe the solution is one that will give States the flexibility, the funding, and the control to decide how best to serve the people of their particular State. I just went through the long list of problems with ObamaCare. It has been problematic from the start, with higher costs, lower quality, less freedom, and people losing their coverage. It is a badly written law, and it hurts almost everyone. Washington had its chance. Now it is time to let the States decide what is best for their people, and let the people decide what is best for their health care. To do that, we are going to have to do something we don't always do up here. We are going to have to jump on this opportunity and work together--Republicans and Democrats, the Federal Government and the States--to find commonsense solutions that are truly patient-centered. That is the type of patient-first approach that will give patients more freedom, more choice, and control over their health care. That is what will expand coverage--not bureaucratic power. That will promote genuine quality and innovation. It is also what is going to bring costs down. I do not think my responsibility is to my party. I do not think our responsibility is to the institution of the Senate or the prerogatives of the Federal legislative branch. I think our responsibility is to the patients who deserve the highest quality care; to the patients who want the best treatments for their children; to the nurses and doctors who deserve freedom to heal according to their wisdom, their experience, and their conscience; and to the businesses that deserve the freedom to design affordable coverage that fits their workforce. Finally, I think we are responsible to the seniors who have paved America's road to prosperity before us and who deserve a strong, secure Medicare program. The Court may just give us the opportunity to firmly and finally reject ObamaCare so that we can deliver what everyone in America deserves--a health care solution. The law has not worked. It cannot work. It is time we return the power of medicine to the people. It is time to stop fighting and to start cooperating and to find a permanent solution. Patients deserve portability in their health insurance, and they deserve affordability. They deserve their peace of mind when their parent or their child or they themselves are in their hour of crisis and when they can count on getting the best health care America has to offer. Sometimes politicians in Washington forget that health care is not about systems or rules and structure or even markets. It is about real people and real families and real lives. So my commitment is simple. Our commitment should be simple. No one who has ObamaCare-subsidized care today will lose that coverage tomorrow. We are equally committed to providing long-term, State-designed, patient-empowering solutions that deliver better long-term results, and safe, secure, and affordable health care and an improved economy. We commit that every patient with a preexisting condition will be able to find affordable coverage. No one will hit a cap on benefits. Anyone can renew their health plan. That is our commitment. Health care is about patients, not politics. It is about doctors and nurses, not politicians. For the millions who have been affected, from the cancelled plans to the higher costs, we are committed to real solutions to protect patients and make health care genuinely personal and genuinely affordable. Hard-working taxpayers deserve certainty, stability, and peace of mind when it comes to health care. A temporary extension of subsidies alone would not be enough. It would just be another Washington gimmick. It would not address the very real problems with the President's health care law. Let's commit to each other--Republicans and Democrats--that we will show a little modesty. We won't assume we know what is best for every American, and we will let the States come up with solutions. We will work together to return power to the States, to the people, and really to the kitchen table, where most health care decisions are made. I know what you are thinking: I am new and have been here for 6 months. Maybe I am a little bit naive. But I have herded a lot of cats in the North Carolina legislature. I have stepped up to very serious challenges, and we produced a lot of good results for my friends and colleagues and citizens in North Carolina. I know it can be done at the State level when policies are on the line that have a real impact on our neighbors--neighbors we have to face in the checkout line and in the church pews. I am looking forward to providing a solution to the health care problems in the United States. I am looking forward to seeing bipartisan cooperation, to delivering on the promises that we make here, and to fulfilling the promise of fixing health care for our great country.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to thank Matt Donovan and Stephen Barney of Senator McCain's staff for their patience and assistance in drafting this amendment. I also want to thank COL Anthony Lazarski of Senator Inhofe's staff and, of course my senior colleague from Oklahoma. I say to the chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN Corps and the 82nd ABN Division. As Senator Reed knows from his long service in the division, the 82nd is the most decorated combat unit in the Armed Forces--it is America's Guard of Honor. GEN Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing that gets a bad guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd ABN is flying straight for his nose.'' But to put it bluntly, the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of ``airborne''. In 2012 the Air Force decided to deactivate the Reserve Air Wing at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate onsite daily support for training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC. The wing consists of 8-12 C-130Hs. Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce a report on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was required to maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for 1 year--the report came out in April, the committee expected it last December. The Congress was to be given time to respond. Unfortunately, the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at Pope long before the report was produced and in direct opposition to this committee's instructions. When asked about this, the Air Force said, ``Congress said nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we are leaving the Aircraft''. The chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this: including Air Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the National Commission on the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to cut the size of AF headquarters. In my brief time in this body I have repeatedly asked the Air Force for documentation as to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations training the departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. I have been rebuffed by Pentagon leadership. The Deputy Commander of the USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope were a ``luxury''. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the Air Force needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown, and Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is there any mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown, and Minneapolis that is as important as supporting Airborne and Special Operations units. In the last 3 months, the commanders of the XVIII ABN Corps and 82nd ABN have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public speeches noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of onsite planes will severely hamper their ability to train and meet requirements of emergency contingencies. The Pope planes provide between 25 to 40 percent of all Airborne and SOF daily training missions. Last year they dropped 50 percent of the 82nd ABN's chutes; 440 AW provides 100 percent of 18 ASOG, Air Force, training--Air Force Special Operations Group. Even as a cost savings device, the transfer of 8 to 12 planes out of Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in--often on a voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units--from around the country and those units will have to go on TDY orders, etcetera. This also does not provide for the moving to the left effects of weather grounding planes that would have to fly into Pope from the rest of the country. As the XVIII ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be problematic. This amendment is simple and it supports the C-130 Avionic Modernization Program that the Air Land Subcommittee validated yesterday by accepting the chairman's $75 million mark and the Manchin amendment. The Secretary of the Air Force shall, by September 30, 2017, station aircraft previously modified by the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program, AMP, in direct support of the daily training and contingency requirements of the Army Airborne and Special Operations units. The Secretary shall provide such personnel as required to maintain and operate such aircraft. There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I believe the AF will try and retire up to 100, and it will hopefully replace 50 more with C-130J models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need AMP. The AF spent $2.3 billion on C-130H AMP, the program was on schedule and cost when the AF cancelled it, the design was validated by the JROC, Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the program had begun Low Rate Initial Production, LRIP. We currently have five C-130H AMP aircraft at Little Rock that will be flown to the bone yard at a loss of approx $300 million, as well as four AMP kits that can be modified to fit any C-130H, three simulators and all software that will be thrown away We can have nine AMP C-130Hs plus simulators and software for $75 million--this also adheres to the law Congress passed last year and was validated by the Manchin amendment yesterday. The bottom line is, if the AF does not take this course, it will send the five C-130H AMP aircraft to the boneyard, wasting $300 million, not to mention the simulators and software. Total amount spent for AMP was $2.3 billion. Program was approved by JROC and was on schedule and cost when AF tried to cancel it. There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I believe the AF will try and retire up to 100, and it will hopefully replace 50 more with C-130J models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need AMP. Total cost to get nine aircraft, all simulators and software running again is approximately $75M which was funded this year.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TILLIS. Senators should expect up to two votes tomorrow morning at 10:15. There are several more amendments in the queue, and my colleagues should expect votes throughout the day tomorrow to make progress on the bill. Amendment No. 1506 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1506.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Shaheen and Tillis or their designees be permitted to offer the next first-degree amendments during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Thursday, June 4, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1735; that there then be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form on the following amendments; and that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed: Portman No. 1522; Bennet No. 1540. I further ask that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have also been asked to announce that there will be no rollcall votes this evening.