Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have the honor to represent the tip of America's spear--Fort Bragg, NC. Fort Bragg is the largest military installation in the United States, and it is the home to the most decorated combat forces of the military, the All-American Division, the 82nd Airborne. The 82nd is a subordinate command of the XVIII Airborne Corps, America's Global Response Force. Whenever a threat occurs, units of the XVIII Airborne can be wheels up and on top of any target in the world in just 48 hours. In the 15 months that I have had the privilege to represent North Carolina in the Senate, I have made the readiness of the XVIII Airborne one of my top priorities. In fact, you would think it would be everybody's top priority, but I have watched budget cutters in the Air Force slowly chip away at the ability of the commanders at Fort Bragg to adequately train their paratroopers at Pope Army Airfield. This year, the Air Force began dismantling the one Air Force tactical unit at Pope--the 440th Airlift Wing--capable of providing daily and ad hoc support for Fort Bragg soldiers. I said at the time that the removal of the 440th created unreasonable risks to the readiness of critical airborne units. They must be prepared to respond to a range of contingencies in very short timeframes. I have pointed out repeatedly that the deactivation of the 440th comes at a time when the Nation is facing growing uncertainty and increasing threats abroad that could require a military response, and it is a response that only forces at Fort Bragg can fulfill. Over the last 7 years, the 440th has provided the Army with unparalleled support, tailored training opportunities without the tyranny of distance that comes through logistical, bureaucratic, and operational delays by having aircraft stationed somewhere other than Pope Army Airfield. The Air Force leadership stated that after any deactivation of the 440th, out-of-State aircraft would support all airlift requirements for Fort Bragg units at Pope. The Air Force asked me to suspend disbelief. They told me to accept that it is more cost-effective for units to fly from Little Rock, AK, or McChord Air Force Base in Washington State and support Fort Bragg in North Carolina rather than having planes stationed at Fort Bragg. I did my best to ensure that the Air Force understood the Army's requirements, and I promised them that if they removed the 440th, I would be monitoring their progress and their ability to satisfy the Army's requirements for as long as I am in the Senate. The first warning signs that the Air Force was in trouble came in December at the annual Operation Toy Drop. Operation Toy Drop is the world's largest combined airborne operation at Fort Bragg. The drop is actually a daytime, nontactical, airborne operation supervised by foreign military jumpmasters. They view it as a rare treat to participate so that they can get jump wings from a foreign country. This year's operation was purposefully designed by the Air Force to prove to Congress--to prove to me--that they could support the training mission at Fort Bragg. To prove the point, the Air Force Reserve went so far as to reduce the 440th's role in the operation. However, when the Air Force planes could not get to Pope because of weather, mechanical, or other delays, the 440th had to step in and make up the deficit, as they have done so many times before. This is the real world in action. Bad weather and mechanical problems happen. The Air Force knows this exercise happens every year. They know it is highly visible. They knew they were under a microscope. Still they couldn't meet the requirement. In fact, during Operation Toy Drop, the 440th provided for about 40 percent of the chutes and 43 percent of the lift for the entire operation. Fort Bragg leadership has been clear to the Air Force in terms of their combat requirements, their training requirements at Fort Bragg. They have told the Air Force that they have to drop 10,000 paratroopers a month. Eight thousand drops a month is considered the bare minimum for the XVIII Airborne Corps. Sadly, the Air Force is not meeting those requirements. Only 6,100 paratroopers exited from Air Force planes in March. That is 1,300 fewer paratroopers dropped than in February, which is 77 percent of the 8,000 sustainable threshold and 61 percent of the Army's overall requirement. Where I went to high school, 61 percent was a D-minus, bordering on an F. They are failing. The Air Force has missed the Army's minimum jump requirements every month this year. These numbers are illuminating and concerning because in the Southeast, this is the best flying weather. January, February, and March have the best flying weather in the Southeast. What is going to happen when the Southeast thunderstorms and tornado season kicks in? If the Air Force can't meet Fort Bragg's need when the skies are clear, how is it going to do when the storm clouds gather? I hope the Air Force knows I have their back as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But in this case, this is about fulfilling the Army's requirement. This is about me having the Army's back. This is about making sure the men and women who will be asked at a moment's notice to assemble on the Green Ramp at the Pope Army Airfield and go wherever they must go to defend freedom and save lives are at their highest state of readiness. But the performance to this point suggests that the Air Force is failing its customer service to the Army. No business in America would be able to dictate to the customer how and when they are going to get their product, but that is exactly what is happening with the Air Force's relationship with the Army--and they are failing. I will ask Senator McCain to inquire as to whether the Air Force expects to meet the needs of the Global Response Force. They haven't in this first quarter, and this is the first quarter that they were trying to transition to a Pope Army Airfield without the 440th. If they can't answer the question, then it is time for us to consider other options. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, through the Chair, I will take about 5 minutes, not more.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his comments, and I would like to be associated with all of them, in fact, particularly recognizing our farmers in North Carolina. The Senator from North Dakota and I have had discussions about the friendly competition among the agriculture States and the hard work they are doing to feed America and the world, but today I rise to express my support for Chairman Roberts' bill for the biotechnology labeling legislation. I am supporting Chairman Roberts' effort because it addresses a real problem. The problem is that a small portion of the food industry is trying to impose their policy preferences onto the entire food supply chain in the United States. We are where we are because the Vermont law is not written in a way that merely impacts the citizens of Vermont. It is astonishing to hear the misleading claim that the Vermont law is about the right to know. If the Vermont law is about the right to know, why is it that the law exempts so many products? Here are some examples of the absurdity of the Vermont law. Vegetable cheese lasagna would be labeled, but meat lasagna wouldn't. Soy milk would need to be labeled, but cow's milk would not. Frozen pizza would need to be labeled, but delivered pizza would not. Chocolate syrup would need to be labeled, but maple syrup would not. Vegetable soup would need to be labeled, but vegetable beef soup would not. Food at a restaurant would be totally exempt, but not food at a grocery store. Vegetarian chili would need to be labeled, but meat chili would not. Veggie burgers made with soy would need to be labeled, but cheeseburgers would not. By my way of thinking, it is a patchwork that doesn't make sense if you are trying to come up with a consistent way to communicate to consumers what is in the food they are eating. The Vermont law is a classic case of the government picking winners and losers and putting the burden of those decisions on the backs of hard- working Americans. I had this slide up to begin with, but this is something we have to continue to be focused on. If you were to take the Vermont law and have a couple dozen States create their own variance and have all the complexity added, it is estimated the added cost of compliance would result in a cost of some 1,000 additional dollars per household. In this economy, how many families can afford another $1,000 a year for food? I am surprised that number is not higher. It most likely will be and here is why: Manufacturers are subject to a $1,000 fine if one of their products is mistakenly or inadvertently found for sale in Vermont on a store shelf. The food industry will have over 100,000 items in the State of Vermont--a State that has roughly 625,000 residents. If only 5 percent to 10 percent of those products are even unintentionally mislabeled, that means fines of as much as $10 million per day, in addition to the millions per year companies will have to pay to actually change their supply chains to comply with the law to serve a population of 625,000. We are often told in this Chamber we need to be more cognizant of the science. Those who are irresponsibly scaring the American people to defend the Vermont mandatory labeling law need to understand the science is against them. Late last year, the FDA rejected a petition calling for mandatory labeling of foods from genetically engineered products stating that ``the simple fact that a plant is produced by one method over another does not necessarily mean that there will be a difference in the safety or other characteristics of the resulting foods. . . . To date, we have completed over 155 consultations for GE plant varieties. The numbers of consultations completed, coupled with the rigor of the evaluations, demonstrate that foods from GE plants can be as safe as comparable foods produced using conventional plant breeding.'' During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week, USDA Secretary Vilsack responded to questions regarding GMOs by emphasizing that the mandatory labeling efforts are not about food safety, nutritional benefits, or sound science. Two weeks ago, the Secretary was quoted at a conference referring to genetically modified products saying, ``I am here to unequivocally say they are safe to consumers.'' Chairman Roberts' language does exactly what Congress should be doing with regard to marketing standards; that is, setting rules of engagement that are consistent, balanced, and fair for all players in the industry by providing consistent information to consumers about the content of their food. With the chairman's bill, the marketplace has an opportunity to find the best approaches to getting consumers the information they want without imposing new regulations that add costs to our food supply, complexity, and no more real information or clarity. If we as a nation are going to have a discussion on the necessity of labeling biotechnology products, fine, but the Vermont law is not the catalyst for that debate, and that conversation should be with the American people, not one State with roughly 625,000 people dictating to the market of more than 317 million people. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that we should do everything we can to inform consumers about the content of their food. There is a right way to do it and there is a wrong way to do it. There is a more costly way to do it as proposed by the Vermont law or there is a more straightforward, effective, and consistent way, and that is what Chairman Roberts is trying to accomplish with this bill. I encourage everyone to support it. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor and talk a little about the ongoing dialogue we are having on the Supreme Court nomination. Before I start this speech, I wanted to comment on something for those who think all we do is fight here. I think the Presiding Officer was at our bipartisan lunch. I think it is a great opportunity. So often we see the debate on the floor and the dialogue in the committee rooms, but we take the opportunity every month or so and Democrats and Republicans come together and we enjoy each other's company. We talk a little about policy but more about the folks back home. So I just wanted to let the American people know that because we happen to have differences, it doesn't mean we don't like and respect so many of our colleagues. Today, though, I am talking about something that is a point of contention between Democrats and Republicans, and it relates to the open Supreme Court seat as a result of the tragic passing of Justice Scalia. Originally, I was going to come to the floor and provide a speech I had prepared, but I was in the Judiciary Committee today and I decided--probably against my staff's wishes--to deviate a little from the script and to talk about some of the facts that were put forth in the Judiciary Committee today. One of the arguments we hear from Members of the Democratic Party is that somehow the Supreme Court has been shut down. That couldn't be further from the truth. Actually, since the passing of Justice Scalia, there have been some 12 arguments heard in the Supreme Court and 5 opinions. There will be several more. As a matter of fact, over the course of history there have been a number of instances where the Supreme Court has had Justices recuse themselves or Justices go on a leave of absence for another duty. So there have been a number of instances where the Court continues to function just fine with eight, and sometimes even fewer than eight, Justices active in any given opinion. So to say for some reason until we make an appointment to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court is going to cease to function defies the facts. As a matter of fact, in the October 2014 session--the Supreme Court has two sessions, the first half of the year and the second half of the year. In October of 2014, there were 72 arguments heard before the Supreme Court. There were only 18 of them that actually were divided along ideological lines within the Court. So three-fourths of all the cases in 2014 were actually settled with significant numbers of people joining together to render an opinion. So the Court is working just fine, and it will continue to work just fine. I would also argue that the idea put forth by some Members that the Supreme Court is suddenly going to be shut down for a year defies logic and history. The Supreme Court is already in session. They will go through probably the end of June or the beginning of July. There is no possible way, under normal circumstances, that we would have time to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would be participating in this term. So what we are really talking about is the October term. If the October term of this year bears any resemblance to the October term of 2014, there may be 5 or 10 cases where the 9-member Court would be material. The vast majority of them are going to move through. That is why this idea of shutting down the third branch of government is disingenuous and really supporting a political agenda and less about whether the government is functioning properly. The other thing I wanted to talk about before I get into some of the reasons I do not support nomination proceedings going through under President Obama is related to some history. Before I get to the history that specifically relates to the constitutional obligation of the Senate, the Senate rules, and maybe some of the positions that have been taken by Members of the minority in the past, I also want to talk about one other area that concerns me in this dialogue. There has been a discussion about the backroom meetings, making the decisions. Well, members meet oftentimes--we tend to meet the majority of the time--in public settings, but members got together and we decided to come up with a policy that was a clear position that the majority of the members of the Judiciary Committee--and the majority of the members are today Republicans--that we were going to take on the nomination. We all agreed--all 11 of us--that we are not going to move forward with the nomination. They can call it a backroom deal, but whether you would argue that is an improper practice, what I found interesting is that members of the Judiciary Committee who brought this up did something that I think was a profound show of disrespect to this institution. It happened a few years ago, when in a back room the leader of the then-majority, Senator Reid, convinced all the members of the Democratic conference to vote on the nuclear option. The nuclear option is--well, it is great I guess for TV--but structurally the nuclear option is that throughout decades there was a 60-vote threshold for moving nominations through the Senate unless you had consensus to hold it down to 51 votes. In a back room, the then-majority leader, Senator Reid, convinced his conference to come to this floor and break the rules to change the rules in order to prevent the minority from being able to weigh in on judicial nominations and a number of other nominations. In fact, after that rule was passed, after that decision was made in a back room and after those folks came to the floor and broke the rules to change the rules, they ended up confirming judges without any input from the then-minority Republicans. So when people want to stand up here and say that somehow what we did was different, this is one nomination. This is a decision we made about one nomination, but we have a group of people--every single person on the Judiciary Committee, in fact, who are in the Democratic conference, voted to deny the minority from having what has been a decades-old tradition in the Senate to have the minority weigh in on nominations. I would now like to get to some of the other discussions. First off, we have to recognize we are in the throes of the primary season for the Presidential nomination. It would be very difficult to live in the United States and not know a little about the primary that is going on. The people are in a position where, over a very few short months, they are going to make a decision. They are going to voice their vote, and I, for one, think the people should be allowed to weigh into this decision. I do believe many of the Senators on the other side of the aisle have felt the same way. In fact, I will go through a couple of quotes where they made it very clear. In fact, they are very trained and very articulate and can probably voice their position--which now is my position--better than I ever could. One thing that comes up in this discussion is our constitutional obligation, and that is the obligation to advise and consent. Keep in mind, the advice and consent is not a constitutional obligation for the Senate to rubberstamp the decisions of the President. Quite the contrary. The whole idea of the three branches was to have certain checks and balances in place. So there absolutely was no concept on the part of the Founding Fathers to say when the President makes a decision, the Congress will rubberstamp that decision. We then have an equal authority to determine whether that nomination will come to a nominations process or we will simply decide not to take up the nomination. Now, a lot of people think that is a new concept, but the reality is, it is a concept that has been in place for many years in the Senate rules. For people to say we always dispose of nominations in the term we are in defies the existence of this rule, which simply says: Should the Senate choose not to take up a nomination, then the next President will put forth another nomination for consideration. Again, I think people are finessing what our responsibilities are and whether this is really something different or something that wasn't anticipated by the people who have come before us and who established the rules that govern the Senate. I want to talk a little about what I think must be a very uncomfortable place for some Members of the minority to be; that is, their own history on the current situation in the Senate. We are in the middle of a campaign. We are in the middle of a tough campaign on both sides of the aisle, whether it is the Democratic primary or the Republican primary. People are engaging in a way they haven't in many years. Turnouts in many of the primaries have been more significant than they have been in many years. People are watching. So we have an opportunity to educate the people on this very important choice in terms of a Supreme Court nomination. I, for one, think the nomination should be instructed by the vote that is cast in November for the President, and, actually, for that matter, the Senate congressional elections. Some people say: Well, the people have spoken and President Obama was reelected to a second term. That is true. And 2 years later the people spoke again, and I was elected to the Senate and Republicans were brought to a majority. So the people spoke in a different way. Just a few months from now we will get the most up-to-date read of where the American people are, who they want to lead the country, and who they want to nominate as the next Supreme Court Justice. This quote has been famously reported in the press, and I couldn't say it any better than then-Senator Biden did. He talked about the need, at a certain point in time during the political process, to set things aside, let the people speak, and let that be instructive to the Supreme Court nomination. Incidentally, I know the Vice President, at the time he made this quote, was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the position Senator Grassley currently holds. He was basically saying what Senator Grassley has said and that I fully support. So I think Vice President Biden was right the first time. He seems to be stepping back on his words, but I don't think his words can be parsed. They were pretty well-articulated right here on the Senate floor. Then we come to the minority leader. We now have the minority leader and others coming to the floor talking about what our constitutional duty is, but the minority leader came to this floor--right over there, not very far from where I am now--and he said: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. I agree with Senator Reid. And finally, we have one from my good friend from New York, Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer is a very articulate man. He is a practiced attorney, and there are many aspects of the man I admire. In another instance, in a very passionate speech given--it is on YouTube so you can all watch it--he has taken a very similar position; that circumstances get to a point to where maybe we need to hold nominations until we get the information we need that is instructive to the future nomination or the future vote or consent matter. I agree with Senator Reid's 2005 statement, I agree with Senator Biden, Chairman Biden, now-Vice President Biden's statement of 1992, and I agree with Senator Schumer's of 2007. My colleagues, it is time for us to move on and recognize the position we have taken is a position that is going to stand. We can go to the American people back in our States, States like North Carolina, where we have a primary next week, and I will be traveling all across the State tomorrow and Saturday, back again on Monday. I will explain to them why I have taken the position I have, and when we do, all the games that are being played now, with one poll saying one thing or another poll saying another thing, we can cut through the noise and talk about what we are really trying to do. What we are trying to do is to give the people an opportunity to voice where they want to take the direction of the Supreme Court, where they want to take the Nation in terms of the Presidency, and where they want to take the Nation in terms of the Congress. I am willing to bet on the people's voice, and I am looking forward to it being instructive to the ultimate decision I make about a Supreme Court nominee. I love getting letters from folks in my State, so the last thing I leave you with is a quote from a lady named Lois from North Carolina. I think she does a good job of summing up my own feelings. She said: I really wish the discussions and hoopla could have waited a little longer after Judge Scalia's passing, but we are having the back and forth of what to do. As your constituent, I'm in agreement with the committee position of waiting until after we have a new President. Word out of the White House to the Senate is: Do your job. Well, I, for one, think you are doing your job. It's called checks and balances. In the coming weeks, I am looking forward to continuing this debate. I want to especially note that Senator Grassley is a wonderful Member of the Senate. He has support and admiration from both sides of the aisle. I appreciate his leadership on this matter. I appreciate Leader McConnell's leadership on this matter. I look forward to getting back to North Carolina and hearing what the people would like for me to consider as we move forward with the nomination process. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I actually was speaker of the house in North Carolina for 4 years. I like a good scrap. I don't have any problem with going to a committee hearing and explaining why I have taken the position I have on the judicial nomination. But that is not what I am talking about today. I am talking about over the next 24 hours, four more people are going to die from overdoses in North Carolina. I am trying to figure out what I say to that mother and that father to say, well, gosh, you know, things got gummed up here because we decided to connect two unrelated issues. One has to do with the Supreme Court nomination, and that is very important. It is critically important. I get that. But what is more important than saving lives of people who we know are going to die? The data is compelling. Folks, we have to get to a point where we get Washington working again, and you don't do it by playing chess. I am not an attorney. I am not a constitutional scholar. But I am a father and somebody who spends a lot of time in my State. I think we have reached a point where we need to get serious with it. We are creating obstacles on CARA that don't exist. People are absolutely costing lives by failing to move on this bill. Let's have a fight. Let's have a committee hearing. I like a good scrap. I am looking forward to having that debate. I am looking forward to the history of other positions that have been taken by my friends across the aisle on how to dispose of nominations from the President. I am happy to do that. But I want this bill passed. I want to be able to go back to the people in North Carolina and say: We are doing everything we possibly can to save lives. That is what CARA does. That is why we need to act.

Mr. TILLIS. If I may completely answer the question, that is the problem with this process. I hear that. I see the Kabuki dances going on. What I want to do is dispose of the amendments on the CARA bill and do our job. Let's do our job. Our job is to pass legislation and in this case save lives. So I get that we need to do the other things, but let's get to the task at hand. Let's do our job. I am prepared to do the job. I will stay here all weekend long. I will work 24/7 until this bill gets passed. Why don't we focus on that and introduce a little humanity into the discussion? I get the procedural issues. We need to have the debates in Judiciary. I am perfectly happy to do that. I want this bill passed. I want Members to come down to this floor, pass amendments, draw down the queue, and send this bill to the President's desk. Let's do our job. I am prepared to do my job today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, and through all of next week if that is what it takes to get this done. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be too. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TILLIS. But I don't see its relevance to the task at hand. That is the problem----

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, we were supposed to be here moving the bill forward. We need to make it clear that we were going to vote on amendments on CARA today to draw down the backlog and move the bill. The Presiding Officer decided to have the meeting off the floor so that we could move judicial nominations. We weren't going to take up legislation there. I think what we need to do is get back to the work of disposing of amendments, making the bill better potentially, and getting it to the House and getting it to the President's desk. That is what I am talking about. This is the capacity. We have limited capacity in this Chamber. You all know the procedural games you can play around here. The limitations of time are numerous. We are just creating more of that. We are gumming up the works while people are dying. One person every 6 hours in the State of North Carolina is dying from a drug overdose. If we delay by 6 hours, we are responsible for a life in North Carolina. These are lives we can save. We need to dispose of the amendments on this bill and move it to the House. Mr. President, I apologize if I am angry, but when lives are involved, when youth is involved, I think it is time for us to do our job. Our job is to dispose of amendments and move this bill to the House of Representatives. Thank you.

Mr. TILLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TILLIS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I didn't have any intention to speak today, but one of the blessings of being a freshman Member is you get the opportunity to preside and hear the arguments that are going on in the Chamber and the discussion about the SCOTUS nomination. We are going to have to agree to disagree with our friends from across the aisle on the SCOTUS nomination. Let's take a look at what is going on here. In North Carolina, over the past 24 hours, some four people have died of a drug overdose. We had more deaths associated with drug overdoses than we had with car accidents last year. So what is going on here? Back in 2008, there was an opioid epidemic. There was a supermajority in the U.S. Senate. There was a Democrat in the White House and a majority in the House of Representatives. No action. In 2010, the epidemic was growing. In places in New England, in the Midwest, down in the South, people were dying. Yet there was no action. Now this Congress has taken action. I think it is time to move the CARA bill. To hold hostage the CARA bill and shift the discussion to a genuine disagreement we have with the minority on SCOTUS is literally costing lives. For those who sit here and want to hold up the CARA bill for the purposes of discussing the SCOTUS nomination, we don't even have a nominee yet. There is going to be plenty of time in committee and plenty of time on the floor to debate this difference of opinion between the minority and the majority. But in the meantime, for people who would hold up passing the CARA bill over the SCOTUS nomination, what are you going to tell the two people--last week, two friends of mine, when they heard my speech on the Senate floor, came to me and said: Thank you for moving this bill. I lost my son a year and a half ago. Two of my friends have told me: Thank you for helping us increase the visibility and get to a point to where we are saving these lives. Those who would hold up the CARA bill, what are you going the tell the first responders who, if they had naloxone, could have potentially saved the life of somebody who has fallen on the floor and died? What are you going to tell them? What are you going to tell the law enforcement officers who are trying to help people live who have succumbed to addiction and opioid abuse? What are you going to tell them by holding up this bill? What are you going to tell the parents who are struggling, who need help with education, who need help with their incarcerated children who may have succumbed to addiction, who did a wrong thing and are in prison and now need help? They need to be rehabilitated. They need to be saved. At some point, we need to recognize that we do need to do things separately. We need to recognize that it is disgraceful to hold up the CARA bill over a genuine disagreement we are going to have for months. I am one of the Senators in the Judiciary Committee who signed the letter. I do not believe that until we hear the vote of the people, we should hear a SCOTUS nomination. But I am not here to talk about SCOTUS today. I am here to talk about saving lives. I am here to talk about addressing the addiction problem that is growing. I am here to talk about the sad, heartbreaking stories of families across this Nation who are starving for help. This bill helps. This bill appropriates over $100 million that can be spent between now and the end of September to save lives. If I come to the floor tomorrow, I am going to be talking about four more lives that have been lost in North Carolina, some that could have been saved if we would just do our job. There is a lot of discussion about doing our job, right? Let's do our job and get CARA passed.

Mr. TILLIS. I yield.

Mr. TILLIS. I say to Senator Schumer, it is true.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, you know more than just about anybody else here that across the Nation there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of opioid addiction, which is now at the point of being a full-blown crisis. In my home State of North Carolina, we have seen this devastation firsthand, with 1,358 overdose deaths in 2014 alone fueled by the combination of abuse of opioid-based prescription painkillers and heroin. To put that figure into context, that is more than the number of North Carolinians who lost their lives in automobile accidents in 2014. For far too long the conventional thinking was that drug addiction deserved the stigma it receives: a choice made by criminals who were intent on destroying the lives of themselves and others. It was a dark and painful embarrassment for their families. It is long overdue for us to come to grips with reality because we know the truth: Drug addiction doesn't discriminate based on one's gender, race, or socioeconomic status. Successful CEOs of major companies have succumbed to addiction. Straight-A students and valedictorians with once bright futures ahead of them have succumbed to addiction. PTA moms and dads, who were pillars of their communities, have succumbed to addiction. We know it because we have seen it in our inner cities, our suburbs, and our tight-knit rural areas. Two weeks ago I picked up my hometown newspaper, the Charlotte Observer. On the front page was a report that highlighted the rising prescription overdose epidemic. It started off with a terrifying story of a North Carolina mother that encapsulates the kind of crisis we are dealing with. The story began: The Charlotte woman didn't know her daughter was a drug addict until she heard a thud upstairs. Her daughter, a bright Myers Park High graduate, had returned from college for the weekend with a sack of dirty laundry. Her mother was folding clothes in the den when she heard the fall of her daughter's unconscious body. She sprinted upstairs. ``She's unconscious on the floor, blue, not breathing. No heartbeat,'' said the mother. That is what the mother saw on the floor of her daughter's bedroom. Fortunately, in this case, the young woman survived the painkiller overdose. With the support of a loving family, she has an opportunity to get her life back on track and seize the chance to reach her full potential. But let's not kid ourselves. This near tragedy could have happened anywhere in America, and any parent could have experienced it. It is important to reflect on how it got to this point, though. In 2012 the CDC completed a report that said that in North Carolina, there were 97 painkiller prescriptions written per 100 people. So what does that mean? It doesn't mean 97 percent of the people in North Carolina are getting painkillers; it means there is a group of people who are getting dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of prescriptions for opioids. In part, this is a result of a greater awareness of the importance of pain management. And many people do need pain medication, but the wider availability of these life-improving and lifesaving surgeries and treatments has actually contributed to the epidemic. The medical community rightly recognized that managing patient pain was the compassionate thing to do and started holding providers accountable for doing so. However, the risk of the wider availability of these powerful medicines must be urgently and rigorously addressed. That is because for Americans from all walks of life, the nightmare of addiction begins with something as unassuming as a routine prescription for a painkiller such as OxyContin or Percocet. Due to the highly addictive nature of these drugs, a patient's body can become dependent and they experience debilitating withdrawal. Once the prescription runs out, the physical addiction unfortunately influences people to make really bad decisions that can be life-changing--seeking more pills on the black market when their doctor says ``no more'' or turning to cheaper or even more deadly opioid drugs, such as heroin. Opioid addiction is a slippery slope, and it is a deadly slope. The CDC has concluded that people are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin if they are addicted to prescription painkillers. Our country desperately needs coordination from Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials to develop comprehensive strategies to combat heroin trafficking and to prevent prescription drug diversion. Federal dollars and resources come with so much redtape and so many mandates that State and local experts cannot use funding for different initiatives, and that is what the CARA bill seeks to address. For example, there simply are not enough treatment slots for mothers with children, and there isn't enough assistance provided to pharmacists and doctors to teach them how to best manage their prescriptions and help the people with the highest risk of addiction. It has been heartening to see Members of Congress set aside their partisan differences in order to take immediate action to address the current shortcomings. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that brings together the experiences and recommendations of drug addiction experts, law enforcement, health care providers, first responders, and the patient community most affected by the opioid epidemic. The legislation expands abuse prevention and education initiatives. It provides grants to substance abuse agencies, local governments, and nonprofit organizations in North Carolina and the rest of the Nation that are being hit hardest by the heroin and painkiller epidemic. Local first responders will receive help through expanded availability of naloxone, a powerful antidote that is used to prevent overdose deaths. It has had amazing impacts on saving the lives of people, such as the young lady I talked about earlier. The legislation also addresses the strain the addiction crisis places on our criminal justice system by providing more resources to identify and treat incarcerated Americans, helping put them on the path to recovery, which in turn could lower the Nation's recidivism and crime rates. We can never forget that the solution to so many of America's problems can be found in our local communities--our schools, our churches, townhalls, and VFW halls. The Federal Government can help support these efforts through smart, commonsense approaches, such as the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. However, we must be honest in recognizing that success will be neither quick nor easy. We are confronted with the reality that addiction is a vicious and devastating cycle of abuse and despair, with consequences that can result in the destruction of loving families and the end to once- promising lives. It affects us all, Mr. President. The fight against addiction is one we must wage together, and we cannot afford to lose. Mr. President, I want to thank the Presiding Officer personally for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to seeing the CARA bill come to the Senate and then on to the President's desk. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, our Nation is in the midst of a Presidential election in which the American people are currently deciding who will be our next Commander in Chief. In my home State of North Carolina, many voters have already submitted their absentee ballots and early voting will begin soon. This election year is especially important. In addition to electing our next President, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in who should be our next Supreme Court Justice. This is a rare opportunity to let people determine the composition of the highest Court in the land, an institution that dramatically affects the lives of all of us. While the stakes weren't as high in 2014 as they are today, the voice of the American people was still heard loud and clear nonetheless. In 2014, the American people sent a message about their displeasure for the President's disregard for our Nation's system of checks and balances. The American people sent a message about their opposition to the President's misuse of Executive orders to bypass the will of the Congress, and the American people sent a message by electing a new Senate majority. Perhaps the memo the Nation sent to the President in 2014 is the reason the minority leadership is now attempting to deny the American people's full voice from being heard in this election. The minority doesn't want the people to decide the composition of the Supreme Court, so they have claimed there is a constitutional requirement for the Senate to give the President's Supreme Court nominee a vote. That couldn't be further from the truth. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution makes this clear. While the President may nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, the Senate holds the power to grant or withhold consent for those nominees. This is not difficult or unique in a constitutional sense. In fact, in 2005, the senior Senator from Nevada took to this very Senate floor and this is what he declared: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give the Presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. The Senate is doing its job by withholding consent, and that is exactly why the rules of the Senate provide further guidance on what happens when the Senate exercises its authority not to advance a judicial nominee. Senate rule XXXI states: ``Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President.'' The Constitution states and the Senate rules anticipate that the Senate can exercise its clear authority to withhold consent on any nominee offered by the President. It is not a novel concept that the Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled during an election year. We can look back to 1992, probably before these pages were even born, when Senate Judiciary Committee then-Chairman Joe Biden eloquently explained the need for the Supreme Court vacancy during a Presidential election cycle and that it should be addressed after the American people had their say in the election. Chairman Biden, now Vice President Biden, said: The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination--until after the political campaign season is over. He went on to say: And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times. The Vice President concludes by saying: I'm sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. Vice President Biden's remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable in 2016. The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our Republic not to launch our Nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next President. Vice President Biden--and this is not something I have said very often--was absolutely right. There should be no hearings. There should be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw in 2016 is to hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people's voices have been heard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, after the very weighty and serious discussion that just preceded me, I come maybe with a little bit more lighthearted message for the Presiding Officer and my colleague, the senior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet. I think everybody knows here--the folks up in the gallery may know-- that Denver is home of the Super Bowl 50 winners, the Denver Broncos. The Presiding Officer and I attended the Super Bowl on Sunday, and I am sure he agrees it was quite a treat. God blessed us with beautiful weather, and the people of Santa Clara really made us feel welcome and at home. They did an amazing job. The Super Bowl organizers are to be commended for their attention to detail and the superb work they did to make us feel welcome. It was a fantastic experience for me. So I can only imagine, with the Presiding Officer having the winning team, how much fun it was for him. I think it is safe to say that there are thousands in Colorado on a Rocky Mountain high this week, and I will bet there are even more who are really happy that the Broncos won the Super Bowl. The Denver Broncos played a great game, and they defeated my Carolina Panthers. Both defenses played extraordinarily well, and the Broncos' offense did just enough to get the job done. So to the Presiding Officer and Senator Bennet, I come to the Senate Chamber today to fulfill my wager to humbly offer my congratulations to the Super Bowl champion, the Denver Broncos, and to all their fans in your great State and, I would argue, across the Nation. But before I talk about the beloved Panthers, I want to thank you for not accepting some of my maybe exuberant or overexuberant offers that I made as a possible friendly wager. And for C-SPAN viewers at home, you may want to avert your eyes. I really don't think I would have looked very good in an orange beard with Broncos earrings. With all due respect to the Presiding Officer, you looked a lot like Papa Smurf with a blue beard. So a simple speech of congratulations is what I have to offer. The truth is, I am deeply disappointed about the Panthers' loss. But it is also true that, unless the Broncos are playing my Panthers or my childhood team, the Miami Dolphins, I am usually pulling for the Broncos. The Broncos' organization, starting with the Bowlen family and Coach Kubiak, are topnotch and well respected in the NFL. Former greats such as John Elway, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Ed--how could he wear so few pads and still survive--McCaffrey, and so many other members have made this team so much fun to watch over the years. But then there is this guy, Peyton Manning, or ``The Sheriff,'' as Coach Gruden nicknamed him back in 2009. I have been watching Peyton Manning since he was recruited to the University of Tennessee many years ago--a five-time NFL MVP and two-time Super Bowl winner on two different franchises. Next month, on March 24, he is going to be 40 years old, and he is playing at the top of his game. Peyton is an amazing athlete, but what really makes Peyton extraordinary is his character and his behavior on and off the field. He is a true gentleman, a great sport, and he is a scholar of the game. I opted not to put up a graphic on the New England Patriots because anybody who knows me knows that I am not much of a fan of the New England Patriots, dating back to a December 1982 snowplow game. But, in addition to all the other things Peyton Manning has done, he also led the Broncos to a victory over the Patriots in the AFC Championship, completely deflating Tom Brady's shot at another Super Bowl ring. That alone makes Peyton Manning a great American, in my book. The Broncos and I do have something in common. We were both born in 1960. We are both 56 years old. They built a franchise that most fans expect to be in contention every year. The Panthers, on the other hand, are young. They were born in 1995. They are 20 years old. They have already gone to the playoffs seven times. They have won two NFC Championships and been in the big game twice, and I believe that next year they have a good shot to be in contention. So before I close, I thank owner Jerry Richardson, Coach Ron Rivera, and the Carolina Panthers. Mr. Richardson is a pillar of our community, and Coach Rivera has developed a Super Bowl-caliber team: Cam Newton, the league MVP; Luke Kuechly, our defensive standout; a total of 10 Pro Bowlers this year; and a 17-to-2 season. It was fun to watch. The Super Bowl was fun to watch. You know, I did grow a playoff beard. After we ended the playoff season, I proudly displayed it for weeks on the Senate floor, back in North Carolina, and at Levi Stadium on Super Bowl night. But on Monday morning I got misty-eyed as I shaved it off in San Francisco. So with all apologies to Tony Bennett, I penned a poem based on one of his songs about that same city. I called it ``I left my hair in San Francisco.'' I left my hair in San Francisco After the game, it haunted me I'm cleanly shaven, quite sad and bare While Broncos fans dance like Fred Astaire The loveliness of Santa Clara seems somehow sad today The glory of my Panthers' season is of another day But I'm looking forward to next year's season Because I expect a Super Bowl repeat for many good reasons To Senator Bennet and to the Presiding Officer, congratulations on a great Super Bowl win for the Denver Broncos, and I look forward to many more games that our two teams may play in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, the President of the United States has fully refused to acknowledge the depth and prevalence of the savagery of Islamic terrorism, and he has refused to offer and implement a strategy to permanently defeat it. We are all too familiar with the consequences of Islamic terrorism: Fort Hood, Boston, Oklahoma, Chattanooga, Ankara, Mali, Beirut, Paris, and more recently, San Bernardino. While the President was in Paris recently, he lectured the American people not on the moral necessity to destroy ISIS but instead on our supposed lack of compassion and understanding regarding his latest plan to resettle 10,000 Middle Eastern refugees in America. I represent the great State of North Carolina. It is a State that has provided refuge to those who have fought and died on America's side-- the South Vietnamese, Laotians, Montagnards, and Cambodians. But the President's remarks were disingenuous, because what he didn't tell the American people is that his own FBI Director has warned of America's inability to properly vet the refugees--an inability that only requires a 1 in 10,000 chance to produce a catastrophic and tragic result. Instead of acknowledging these well-founded concerns, the President hectored the critics of his plan--Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else in between--even after French authorities told him several members of the terrorist cell got into France masquerading as Syrian refugees. Syrian refugees with fake passports were caught trying to reach America through Honduras, and Syrians have been arrested trying to cross into Texas. Let me tell you why this administration's rebuke is indicative of a foreign policy that is completely detached from reality. On October 29, 23 refugees died in a rocket attack at Camp Liberty in Iraq. Camp Liberty is a former U.S. military base outside of Baghdad that is home to more than 2,000 Iranian refugees who are members of the main opposition group to the ayatollahs in Tehran. The refugees at Camp Liberty have been fully vetted by American intelligence services. Eighty Iranian-built rockets struck the camp that has been home to the People's Mojahedin, an organization that has tried to fight the mullahs in Tehran. The ayatollahs want the leaders and the families of these inhabitants at Camp Liberty eliminated, and their friends in Baghdad are doing their bidding. The men, women, and children at Camp Liberty have suffered numerous attacks resulting in hundreds of casualties. Nor has Camp Liberty, which was supposed to be a temporary home before the refugees were settled outside of Iraq, met the most basic humanitarian needs. They lack clean water, decent food, medical supplies, and decent living facilities; and every single day they go to bed at night worried if it is their last day on Earth. The Obama administration pledged to protect these refugees who put their lives and their children's lives on the line for freedom. Yet it has done absolutely nothing to keep America's word. Why take in unvetted Syrian refugees and not a handful of refugees from Iran that are fully vetted? To curry favor with the same regime that killed American soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn? I hope not. President Obama has willfully ignored 40 years of hostility from Tehran. If the President does not recognize that we are at war, the ayatollahs certainly do. They are the chief sponsors of global terror. They have imprisoned American journalists. They have tested long-range missiles. They just completed another test in violation of international treaties over the last couple of weeks. They have never stepped back from their desire to obliterate Israel and to destroy the United States. This is the Obama doctrine. The President sees American foreign policy as the problem. He views Israel as an obstacle to peace, and Iran is treated as another oppressed constituency with legitimate grievances against the West, so much so that when millions of Iranians took to the streets against the mullahs, President Obama did nothing and said nothing. The old American alliances are collapsing in confusion and fear, and the only answer from the administration seems to be to clear Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Section 1227 of this year's National Defense Reauthorization Act memorializes Congress's desire to see that our friends at Camp Liberty are protected and relocated outside of Iraq in accordance with international conventions. The children of Camp Liberty are dying and the bad guys are watching. They are watching to see if the President of the United States tosses aside another American friend, clearing the way for a new Persian empire--a tyrannical empire armed with nuclear weapons. I will end with the thoughts of Natan Sharansky, a survivor of the Soviet Gulag. He said: Today an American President has once again sought to achieve stability by removing sanctions against a brutal dictatorship without demanding anything in return. . . . We are at a historic crossroads, the United States can either appease a criminal regime--one that supports global terror, relentlessly threatens to eliminate Israel and executes more political prisoners than any other--or stand firm in demanding change in its behavior. I don't think a lot of people know about Camp Liberty, but I want you all to know that there are 2,000 people over there who were fighting for freedom in Iran. The American people committed to protecting them and to getting them to a place where they can be safe. These are refugees who are fully vetted. They have gone through all the processes that we are wondering and worrying whether the Syrian refugees can. Let's show good faith by fulfilling our promise to the people at Camp Liberty and making sure that the American people know and the people at Camp Liberty know that we care about them and we wish them the very best that they can achieve--and that is not in a camp somewhere in Iraq. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, last year the Presiding Officer and I and a number of us went out to the folks in our great States and we promised that if we were elected into a majority, we would do everything we could to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The process the American people are going to witness over the next 24 hours is our fulfillment of that promise. It will take 51 votes to send a bill to the President's desk that repeals the most egregious provisions of ObamaCare. Once we do that, we can begin to start the process of addressing the legitimate health care problems instead of an option that has made the problems worse. It is a system that will control costs and put patients first. It is a system that puts choice first. It is a system that puts quality ahead of partisan politics. This will be an open process that we will go through tomorrow, and that is the way it should be. That means it will require some tough votes. Many of my friends on the right may not particularly like or enjoy the amendments that will be offered and then voted on, but I, for one, when confronted with a vote I may otherwise like to support--if I feel it prevents us from moving forward and being successful in sending this bill to the President's desk, then I am prepared to make those tough votes to be absolutely certain we fulfill that fundamental promise of repealing ObamaCare. However, in the end, this is about doing everything we can to keep our promise to the American people. While we in Congress will put our conscience over politics--if we do--the President seems to put politics over what I believe he and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know is a failed policy. This is exactly the underlying failure of ObamaCare. It was a never-ending list of promises and assurances that have not and never will be realized. We all remember the same promise we heard over and over again from the President: If you like your health care, you can keep it. If you like your doctors, you can keep them. That has absolutely not happened in my great State of North Carolina, and I would daresay it hasn't happened across the Nation. Millions of Americans were kicked off their plans and given a set of alternatives that were drastically more expensive. They were told they could no longer see the doctors they had visited and trusted for years. In North Carolina alone, we had over 470,000 cancellation notices. When they promised that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep it, there was a little asterisk there, and the asterisk was, you can keep it if the Federal Government determines that a policy you are satisfied with, they are satisfied with. That is how they say they kept their promise, but it was an empty promise and they haven't kept it. We also remember the President's promises to make health care more affordable, boasting that ObamaCare would reduce premiums by $2,500. That hasn't happened either. In North Carolina, during the first full year of the exchange rollout, premium prices increased and outpaced the increases in wages and inflation. The average home is spending more on health care and getting less in their paycheck. The premium prices in the individual insurance market increased by 147 percent--147 percent. This leads to the problem of people having insurance they can't afford to use because they can't afford their deductible or their copay. It has created real-life horror stories of families struggling to make the choice between paying for their health care and paying to keep food on their table. Last month I received a letter from a North Carolina couple nearing retirement who are lifelong small business owners. These are their words: Last year, our premiums for a bare bones policy was nearly $1,000 a month. It is a terrible policy, but nothing else was available within our budget. I received the 2016 rate late last Friday. The premium is going up 40 percent. So now that $1,000-a-month policy will cost them $1,400 a month with a higher deductible. The letter continues: For the first time in my adult life we may have to forgo having health insurance and take our chances. I received another letter from another North Carolinian. He wrote: I'm a self-employed person barely making ends meet. My wife works 60 hours a week. We might take home close to $40,000 a year. We have done our best to make it on our own with no government assistance. Back in 2008, the company I worked for shut down. Since then, we have gone through all our life savings to make ends meet. When I first started buying our health insurance in 2008, our premiums were around $600 for me and my two daughters. Just received our letter and found out our new premium will jump to $1,700 a month. These stories are heartbreaking, and they are not unique to North Carolina. I know each and every Senator, whether they support ObamaCare or want to repeal it, has received similar stories from constituents chronicling how ObamaCare has caused them immeasurable financial and emotional hardship and no better access to affordable health care. I can tell you that with nearly every one of these letters and calls to my office I receive, my constituents also express their desire for Congress to vote for repeal of the ObamaCare law. It has caused so much pain, and it hasn't solved any problems. That is exactly what the Senate is going to do tomorrow. We are going to keep our word-- something I think sometimes citizens feel we just don't do enough of up here in this Chamber. We are going to send a bill to the President's desk that repeals the most egregious portions of ObamaCare. Keep in mind that many of the bad things that will occur with ObamaCare are not even in place today. If you don't like it now, I guarantee you will not like it next year even more so. Again, I want to get back to the process for a minute. This process we are going through is one of the unique instances where we can pass a bill and send it to the President's desk with 51 votes. Normally it takes 60. In order for us to be able to pass it with 51 votes, it is going to require us to be very strict in terms of what this bill may or may not have in it. There are going to be games played tomorrow. There will be amendments put out there that Members know would prevent us from being able to send this bill to the President's desk. I, for one, am going to stand with the leadership, who I appreciate having the courage to bring this bill forward and make sure that we take votes and send this bill--a fulfillment of my promise to the citizens of North Carolina--to the President's desk. And to those who vote against it, Americans, take notice because they are not listening to you. They are not reading the letters and hearing the stories I hear every single day, and they should be held accountable when they are next up for reelection. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his time today, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have the sad duty to report to the Senate the passing of the first lady of North Carolina, Dorothy ``Dot'' Helms. Mrs. Helms was known to many in this body as the ever gracious wife of my illustrious predecessor, Senator Jesse Helms. In fact, I chose to stand at this desk because it is the desk he stood behind for the many years as he served the United States and the great State of North Carolina in the Senate. For 66 years Dot Helms was the rock upon which the Helms legacy was built. Long before she met her future husband, Dot Helms was a trailblazer in North Carolina. She was the first woman to graduate from the University of North Carolina school of journalism in 1940, where she rubbed elbows with the likes of fellow Tar Heels, Edward R. Murrow and friend and classmate David Brinkley. While a reporter for the legendary owner-editor of the Raleigh News and Observer, Joseph Daniels, she met a young man on the sports desk named Jesse Helms, and the rest is history. Mrs. Helms was a leader in Christian causes, such as her sponsorship of the interdenominational children's camp Willow Run at Lake Gaston. While in Washington, she taught at Gallaudet University and actually wrote a book on great Americans who happened to be deaf. In the Senate, she was the leader of the Senate Ladies Bible Study, the Congressional Wives Prayer Group, and the U.S. Senate chapter of the Red Cross. She was a confidante and pillar for many friends on both sides of the aisle, including Elizabeth Dole, Erma Byrd, Beryl Bentsen, and Linda Johnson Robb. Politically, she was a close friend of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. In 1976, she took the unusual step of campaigning tirelessly across the State of North Carolina in support of then-Governor Reagan's insurgent Presidential candidacy. Needless to say, the Governor carried the North Carolina primary against a sitting President in no small part due to the work of Dot Helms. Two years ago, Gov. Pat McCrory awarded Dorothy Helms the Order of the Long Leaf Pine for her contributions to the civic and religious life of the Tar Heel State. Fittingly, the Governor honored her with the official North Carolina State toast: Here's to the land of the long leaf pine, The summer land where the sun doth shine, Where the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, Here's to ``Down Home,'' the old North State! ``Where the strong grow great. . . . '' Dot Helms and North Carolina are one and the same. For her family and friends and a grateful nation, we can turn in comfort to the Second Book of Timothy: ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the faith.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the obituary of Mrs. Helms from the Jesse Helms Center Foundation in Monroe, NC, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I will close by saying that I hope we all remember another great North Carolinian who was buried just today, Congressman Howard Coble. He served 5 years in the North Carolina House and 30 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was a great American, and he will be missed. I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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 hate to sound like a broken record, but unfortunately that is the scenario the Obama administration and the minority leader have led me to today. When I sought this position as a Senator from North Carolina, I promised the voters back in my home State that I was going to come up here and fix problems, fix Washington, and get us back to work. Yesterday an attempt to rein in the President and the EPA failed. It failed along party lines. Today we had another chance to come together and help protect Americans from Washington's continual power grab, to ensure they are not subject to illegal Executive overreach, and to take control of a bloated bureaucracy. Today's effort passed but only by a slim margin. We must stand up to the President and to the Senate minority leader and their efforts to continue implementing policies that destroy our Nation's economy and in this case harm farmers and small businesses in a variety of ways. I want the voters to remember this day. I want them to remember who stood against the illegal expansion of Federal control over their land and their livelihood and remember those who did not. The waters of the United States--we have acronyms for everything, it is called WOTUS--is just another Washington power grab that has more to do with controlling your property than ensuring access to clean water. Leaders at the EPA claim that those who oppose WOTUS oppose clean water. That seems like an absurd notion for anybody who is in this body. This is a completely false and elitist claim. I firmly believe that Members on both sides of the aisle can all agree we value clean water. I love nothing more than going out on Lake Norman back in my home State or spending time fly-fishing in the mountains of North Carolina or spending time on the rivers near our coast, but under this rule virtually every nook and cranny of the country would be subject to EPA control. There is a risk that puddles in our backyards and ditches and crop fields will be regulated in the same manner our States regulate--properly--our beautiful lakes and rivers. One thing is clear under the waters of the United States, WOTUS, there is no clarity. There is complete uncertainty and layer upon layer of bureaucratic redtape. Our landowners, our farmers, our ranchers, and business owners across the country will be subject to compliance costs, new fines, and the risk of litigation--all at the discretion of the Environmental Protection Agency. In March, the Senate agriculture committee held a hearing on the waters of the United States, inviting stakeholders to discuss their concerns. We were proud to have the secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, who told us in regard to the rule: ``It's not absolutely clear what in the world it does say, other than providing the EPA with a lot of discretion when determining navigable waters.'' Navigable waters--not a ditch, not a depression that gets filled up when it rains but navigable waters. How on Earth are Members of this body, Senators, willing to allow such a horrible policy to plague our farmers, our businesses and, I might add, our cities and towns that on a bipartisan basis have expressed concern to me in my home State. It is clear to me the Obama administration did not consult with our State leaders, county leaders, and city leaders when choosing to redefine the rule. We are at a moment where we must prevent this policy, putting our landowners and job creators ahead of partisan politics. It is not my goal to focus simply on North Carolina in this speech. I know my colleagues from Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, a number of States have family and friends who will endure burdens if this bad policy stands. My State is a great example of just how detrimental this rule is to our farmers and to families in North Carolina. North Carolina has over 300 miles of coastline, 17 major river basins, and roughly 37,000 miles of freshwater streams--all places that North Carolina residents, farmers, and businesses call home. Much of the eastern part of the State, which runs along the Atlantic Ocean, is susceptible to flooding, even after the lightest rainfall. Earlier this week parts of the State were again hit hard with heavy rainfall, compounding the effects of last month's historic flooding associated with the hurricane. If the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with waters of the United States, it will severely restrict the local government's ability to quickly react when we are recovering from events. Imagine this. Imagine a water event or a hurricane or a rain like we had in South Carolina, which dumps 1 foot or 2 feet of water on an area that has been cropland, cultivated, and harvested by farmers--let us say in North Carolina or South Carolina. This rule is going to make it almost impossible for that farmer to begin recovering immediately because of the uncertainty of the regulations that come with waters of the United States. Not only will they suffer the ravages of the storm, they will also suffer the ravages of this poorly thought-out policy overreach. The policy raises many questions. For example, is a flooded ditch considered a navigable water under waters of the United States? Many people believe it is. What about a crop field that just had 2 feet of rain? A standing pothole may actually be subject to waters of the United States, which puts a farmer in the position where they may get punitive measures imposed upon them by the EPA. Don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer in ensuring clean water. It is imperative to a flourishing agriculture industry and our local State and national economies. In North Carolina we have a thriving brewery industry out in the beautiful mountains of Asheville. They need access to abundant, clean water. In Eastern North Carolina, we have a thriving pharmaceutical industry. They need access to abundant, clean water. There are a variety of reasons why we have to make sure our water resources are clean and abundant. How can I tell our farmers that in ensuring clean water, we may fine them for small flood puddles such as the one shown here? We need fair practices that will help turn our economy around, not hinder the hard work of our farmers, our ranchers, and small businesses across this country. We need policies that will help families put food on their kitchen tables and not penalize our land and homeowners. Americans need clarity and they need fairness, not vague, ambiguous rules such as the WOTUS, waters of the United States, which undercut State authority, undercut local authority, and promote what I believe is an illegal government overreach. The Supreme Court has tried to rein in the EPA's misinterpretation of ``navigable water'' several times. Based on the result of our vote earlier today, the majority of this Chamber and the House believe the EPA has overreached--and the courts agree. Yet the President said he will veto the bipartisan resolution that just passed out of this Chamber today. This administration continues to disregard the will of the Congress, the warnings of the courts, and the preferences of the American people. How long will we continue to let the partisan Obama administration dictate our course of action in the Congress and for the country? We must stop this unfunded mandate and alleviate the burdens on our farmers and business owners, not punish them. If we do not stop the implementation of this egregious rule right now, we are setting a dangerous precedent and we are betraying the trust of many Americans. I urge my fellow colleagues today: Let us stay strong on this bill. Let us send a message to the President that he should sign this resolution into law and get back to healing this economy. Thank you.