Thom Tillis

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Some may know and some may not that today is Medicaid's birthday, and I thought it was probably a good time to--or anniversary or whatever you want to call it. But I came down here to reconnect to a discussion that I was having with my colleagues and with the White House on some of the concerns I have with the provisions in the bill that we packaged that was called the Big Beautiful Bill. That is actually not a marketing term. It is literally what the name of the bill is. First, I have to stipulate that there are aspects of this bill that I would love to vote on 10 times--for example, the tax reform. The tax portions of this bill were something I worked very hard, as a member of the Finance Committee, to get passed back in 2017. What we did there was to avoid the single largest tax increase in U.S. history. For those who say it was tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, you probably ought to read the language or have somebody who has read it explain it better. The tax reform measures help people who grew up like I did, first and foremost. Go to that trailer park that I lived at on Richards Road in Antioch, TN, which is just south of downtown Nashville, or go to the one that I lived in in Jacksonville, FL, and ask them what happens--when you ever tax businesses--to their jobs. I could get into a lot of other discussions, but the bottom line is, I didn't have a problem with the tax provisions. I actually wish that the tax had been in the content of the first bill and that we had taken the time to get the Medicaid policy right. But I am back here again to talk about the Medicaid policy because we have to get it right. One of the reasons I decided to resign when I was confronted with the challenge of opposing this bill--I should say ``retire,'' not ``resign.'' I am still here--was to make the point that getting this policy right was more important than my getting reelected. I think the Medicaid policy in this bill is so fundamentally flawed that if we don't correct it that my colleagues--red State or blue State Republicans, purple State Republicans, and red State Republicans--may end up being guilty of almost the identical mistake that Barack Obama made when he forced ObamaCare down our throats without seeking a single Republican vote to get policy that made sense. I was so convinced that Obama was wrong that I quit my job and worked full time to get the North Carolina legislature ready for only being in the majority for the second time since the Civil War as I was so convinced the policy was going to be wrong a year before it got implemented and that the Democrats had overreached. I became the second Republican speaker of the house in North Carolina, since the Civil War, based on a bad healthcare decision. The policy that the House sent us in the reconciliation bill was good policy for Medicaid. It had a work requirement, which I support; it had all kinds of policies for waste, fraud, and abuse that made sense; and it saved $100 billion over 10 years. But then somebody in the White House tried to convince the Senate that they should up the ante for $200 billion more in revenue to pass policy that will do, I think, irreparable damage not only in the policy but in the politics, but we have time to fix it. The reason I came to the floor today on the birthday of Medicaid is to say I believe the President does not want to harm qualified beneficiaries of Medicaid, but this bill will in its current form. There is a way to fix it. There is a way to have President Trump's legacy deliver on his promise not to push people off of Medicaid and government support systems who qualify for them. I am not talking about the ones who probably shouldn't be on it. There is a way to fix it, but if we don't fix it, I believe that our President's legacy--President Trump, whom I have supported; I have supported each one of his election efforts, and I support him to this day--is at risk if we don't recognize we are done and move on to the next thing. We don't have to touch a line of the tax policy. We can have a discussion about some of the renewable energy, but I am not going to have that discussion. I want to have a discussion about something that I believe could be the Republicans' ObamaCare. Now, there are some States that probably are not affected substantially, but the majority is. I believe, if we come together and work on this policy and also work on the policy that is set to expire at the end of September--and that is some of the subsidies for the healthcare exchanges for ObamaCare--we could get this right, and this President's legacy will be righting the mistake that was made by Obama and avoiding the mistake that his advisers have told him he should pursue. So I want the President of the United States and my colleagues in the Senate body to know I am unbridled by any political considerations for the next 17 months, and I stand ready to work with my Republican colleagues and Democrats who are willing to be bipartisan and do something right for our healthcare policy here to get this right. And if I do nothing else in my remaining 17 months, that is worth the effort.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two subjects, the first of which is the vote that will begin here in about an hour and a half, and that is on this rescissions bill. I have indicated, I voted for the discharge petition and the motion to proceed last night. For those that may not know that process, voting for the discharge petition simply means that we took it out of committee. Voting for the motion to proceed simply means that we are now on the bill and will be considering amendments over the course of the next several hours to determine if we have Member support to change the bill, to improve it from different people's perspectives, and I intend to vote for final passage at this time. I am also looking at other amendments that maybe will make the bill better, but I also have to speak to the unique nature of this rescissions package so that we make sure that we get this right, and we lay groundwork for future rescissions. The only time that we have had a successful rescissions package in modern history was 1992. And that rescission--by the way, for those who don't know what rescission is, it just simply means this funding will be cut. You will not be allowed to spend money in the administration. Well, in 1992, the successful rescissions package actually had significant cuts, but in every case, it had very detailed lists of specific programs that were going to be cut. So then as Members, when they proceeded in 1992--candidly, I wasn't even paying attention to politics back in 1992 at this level--but when they were proceeding with the rescissions package, they can look at a specific line item and come to the floor, like we are going to do this afternoon, and say: I don't like that line item. I am going to see if I have enough support among my colleagues to take that one out. I will end up voting for the rescission, but I want that out because I disagree that we should be cutting the funding. In an ideal world, that success in 1992 would have instructed the rescissions package we have before us today, but the reality is, we don't have those details. I am prepared to vote for this rescission package with the hope that I can trust those who are going to make the detailed decisions for about $7 billion of the total $9 billion rescission. About $2 billion of it is associated with National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. People have asked me why wouldn't I try to vote on an amendment to cut that out. Because I believe that those organizations have drifted over time, that we probably, at some point, should provide funding to them, but I am not going to fight that part of the rescission because at least we know exactly what it is. So Members have to decide whether or not they are OK with it. I suspect we are going to find out there are some things that we are going to regret, some second- and third-order effects, and I suspect that when we do, we will have to come back and fix it, similar to what I am trying to do with a bill I voted against a couple of weeks ago, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that I think we are going to have to go back and work on. But the remainder of the rescissions package really is at the top level. We have no earthly idea what specific cuts will occur, but I am willing to give OMB and the President the benefit of the doubt that they are going to be responsible cuts. There are two kinds of areas that I am going to be focused on, in particular. There is an area that could lay the groundwork for the administration to cut roughly $200 million from a Ukraine support program. It is not the military support program. I appreciate what the President is doing in terms of finally getting to a point where we are going to sustain support for Ukraine. This happens to be a program that some believe, you know, if it is cut could harm some of the nonmilitary aid that we are providing Ukraine. I share that belief. Now, I have been told as late as yesterday that will not be one of the cuts, and so I am willing to move forward and vote on this bill on the assumption that that comes to pass. However, if we find out that some of these programs that we have communicated should be out of bounds, that advisers to the President decide that they are going to cut anyway, then there will be a reckoning for that. It won't be in this bill, but this is only a small bill. This is a $9 billion rescissions package, folks. We have been told that through DOGE there should be $1 trillion or $2 trillion in savings. The reason why it is so important to get this rescissions bill right is because if confidences are betrayed with a $9 billion bill, do you really think you are going to have the support for wide-open, ``trust us'' decisions for future larger decisions? In other words, if my confidence is betrayed here, then I won't vote for another rescissions bill, unless we have that line-item programming. But I am willing to go through this exercise, and, hopefully, we can trust the administration to not go down the path that we have been assured that they won't when they are given this broad ability to make up to about $7 billion in cuts. Now, some of them are obvious. People are going to say: Well, Tillis, you are worried about--pick some sort of liberal program in some part of the world. Well, obviously, we are not. There are a lot of things that we can cut where scope creep, or fraud, or abuse exists, but some of these programs will have life impacts. I was in Kenya, in Nairobi outside of Kenya. I was at a Sudanese refugee camp a couple months ago. And what struck me in this refugee camp were these American signs in a maternal ward with children that had distended bellies. They had flies crawling all over them, expectant mothers sick, and they were thankful that they had that condition to bring their children to and to potentially get support for expectant mothers. They were thankful for those conditions that we would find abominable in this country, and they were willing to give the United States credit to give them those conditions. Those are the kinds of programs that I am imploring the administration to not touch when given the broad authority that they will get with this bill--because if they do, it could be the end to billions of dollars that we could potentially rescind if we don't do one of two things in this bill: No. 1, get this authority and cut programs like I just described in Kenya or Ukraine or get this authority and betray a confidence with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a spending decision that was used to fund the government. We have got this yearend appropriations we have to work on--September 30. We have got to fund the government. Now, how likely is it that Democrats are going to come with us--the only way we can fund the government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the end of September 30 or we could go into a shutdown. If I am a Democrat and you are trying to get me to vote and get to a 60-vote threshold to fund the government and you have just betrayed a prior agreement and a prior appropriation, what is the likelihood that they are going to do that? So if we don't get agreement, if I see any rescissions that are betraying a confidence that we as U.S. Senators made to get the government funded, that is going to be a problem for me in the next rescissions bill. Now, somebody may say I am showboating or doing something else by coming to the floor and doing this, but, folks, I am trying to protect this administration from itself in terms of future decisions that will make our job more difficult to govern here. I want the President to be successful with these rescissions packages. I want the people advising him to know how they execute will determine whether or not President Trump is ultimately successful. Federal Reserve Mr. President, so that is all I have to say about that, but I do have a brief comment before I relinquish the floor, and I apologize to my friend and colleague from New Hampshire. There has been some talk about potentially firing the Fed Chair. And I think probably people need to be educated on how--the Fed really only has two things that they need to do: They need to keep unemployment low, and they need to manage inflation. It is called a dual mandate. Now, some people may actually think that Chair Powell just has broad authority to set policies around that and that by firing him or replacing him then everything is good, that person can make good decisions that a given administration likes. Folks, there is something called the FOMC, which has 12 voting members and 7 members that come into the discussion when we are talking about policies around rates. Twelve of them have to vote for a rate increase to occur. No one person, including the Chair, can influence that unless there is a consensus. So if anybody thinks that firing Chair Powell is going to change their focus and their method on the dual mandate, simply, they don't know what they are talking about. They don't know how this whole process works, and I hope they do because the consequence of firing a Fed Chair just because political people don't agree with that economic decision will be to undermine the credibility of the United States going forward. And I would argue, if it happens, you are going to see a pretty immediate response, and we have got to avoid that. Look, I have had problems with Chair Powell, but at the end of the day, I respect him, and I respect the independence of the Fed. And if anybody thinks that it would be a good idea for the Fed to become another Agency within the administration, subject to whatever the President's advisers want him to do, they are making a huge mistake, and they really need to study how that process works. 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. TILLIS. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy talked about Scooter, and Senator Scott talked about Bubba. I want to talk about Jelly Roll. It turns out, in a committee hearing with Jelly Roll--the country music rock singer--he grew up in Antioch, TN. I said: Do you remember Countryside Village? He said: Well, they call it Countryside Meadow. I said: I used to live there. He said: I did, too. It is a trailer park that is still standing on Richards Road in Nashville, TN. Back in the late seventies and early eighties, I was living in that trailer park, and I was living with a family in the economic bubble. I remember back then when President Reagan came in and he offered tax cuts that everybody characterized as tax cuts for the rich. But let me tell you all, when we saw those tax cuts implemented, Thom Tillis and Jelly Roll ended up finding opportunities beyond our wildest imagination. So it turns out that those so-called tax cuts for the rich back then lifted me out of that situation into a high-tech career and now standing here before you in the U.S. Senate. This and several other amendments are amendments that are standing in the way of other people getting lifted out of that same trailer park. So, ladies and gentlemen on our side of the aisle and those over there, I hope you will join us. Shout loudly ``no.'' Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, the reality is, let's fast-forward now to 2017. I was in this Chamber when we passed the TCJA. After we passed this, again, everybody was arguing this was all tax policy for the rich, but we unleashed an American economy that we had not seen in our history. In fact, it was better than the tax cuts of the Reagan era. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to get every bit of what we did in 2017 back on the books because people are not understanding the pro-growth nature of this tax policy. I hope my colleagues will vote loudly yes once again--no--no once again.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am guessing, while they are probably focused a little bit less on me because I have made an announcement this weekend, but you can already tell that this narrative is about how we are all about the wealthy. I have already stipulated that I have concerns with the Medicaid bill. You all know where I am on that. But we were talking about the tax bill, and there is nothing in this tax bill that I think falls short of an extraordinary opportunity for economic growth that lifts up the very people whom I grew up with. For that reason, once again, I hope you will vote loudly no. Vote on Motion

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, in truth, you can see this sort of upping of the ante. These are the gimmicks that we play when we want to get a show vote, especially with somebody who may be running for reelection. We know that this isn't going to materially change things. My friend from Maine knows where I am on healthcare, and I hope that we get things fixed. But this exercise, by virtue of its being a voice vote, tells you all you need to know about this process. And for that reason, I would suggest just one more loud ``no'' vote. Vote on Motion

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come today to explain my vote yesterday for voting against the motion to proceed on this bill. I spent most of my career in management consulting. I managed large, complex enterprise projects, multiyear, thousands of hours, with a lot of complexity that takes people, process, and technology to make them work. I learned a lot in that career, and I was able to go to the legislature and take that mindset as a member of the minority for two terms. Then we got the majority in 2010, and I found myself being the speaker of the house. We were in the middle of the financial crisis. When I got sworn in in January of 2011, North Carolina had a $2 billion shortfall on a $20 billion general revenue fund, and I had 6 months to balance that budget. We did something that had not been done in North Carolina. We took the time to understand every aspect and every dollar that was being spent in government. We determined how to cut government in a way that was sustainable. We cut 12 percent from the university system budget, not at the rate of growth but the actual spending. I had some people say that it was going to be disruptive, and the University of North Carolina would never be the same again. But we did it in a way that was instructed by the operations of the university system. And we did it in a way in concert with the chancellors. And do you know what happened? We actually balanced the budget. We did do those cuts. And the last time I checked, the North Carolina University system is still considered one of the greatest systems in the United States of America. Why do I use that example? Because the Medicaid proposal in this bill bears no resemblance to that kind of discipline and due diligence. It has no insights into how these provider tax cuts are going to be absorbed without harming people on Medicare. Even worse, most of my colleagues do not even understand, on either side of the aisle, the interplay of State-directed payments and the devastating consequences of the funding flows that are going to be before us. Here is how I figured out the impact in North Carolina: I used to be speaker of the house. And I like the speaker and have a good relationship with the speaker and the President pro tempore, so I called them up. I had my staff ask them if they would do an impact assessment on what this proposed bill would do to the Medicaid Program in North Carolina. But I didn't want just the view of the Republican partisan staff that report to the speaker and the President pro tempore on how they are going to absorb this bill. I decided to go to Josh Stein, the Governor. I went to his Democrat staff for Medicaid. I asked them to prepare an estimate, independent of the estimate that I had done with fiscal research. But I took it a step further. I went to the hospital association. I asked three different independent groups--a partisan Democrat group, a partisan Republican group of experts, and a nonpartisan group of the hospital association to develop an impact assessment, independent--not talking, not sharing, reporting to me. What I found is the best case scenario is about a $26 billion cut. Now, we have got a delay, so it may be 2 years; it may be 1 year. All it does is make that $26 billion happen in year 1 or year 12. But the impact is the same, and it is indisputable. Now, when I actually presented this report, that you can find on my website, I had people in the administration say: You are all wet. You don't know what you are doing. I said: Well, why don't we assemble a series of meetings. We are going to provide you our analytics. You go through it. Tear it apart. And I told Mehmet Oz, whom I consider to be one of the most capable people in the Trump administration--he is a brilliant man. I encourage my Democrat colleagues to talk to him. He knows his stuff, and he is very focused on getting efficiencies out of CMS. So we had three different conference calls with CMS, with Oz on the video and me on the video. I said this: Guys, I would love nothing more than for you to prove me wrong. I would love nothing more than for you to tell me it is not $26 billion or $30 billion; that it is $2.6 billion or $2 billion or $200 million. But after three different attempts for them to discredit our estimates, the day before yesterday, they admitted that we were right; that between the State-directed payments and the cuts scheduled in this bill, there is a reduction of State-directed payments, and then there is the reduction of the provider tax. They can't find a hole in my estimate. So what they told me is that, yes, it is rough, but North Carolina has used the system; they are going to have to make it work. All right. So what do I tell 663,000 people in 2 years or 3 years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding is not there anymore, guys? I think people in the White House, the amateurs advising the President, are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise. Do you know the last time I saw a promise broken around healthcare, with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is when somebody said: If you like your healthcare, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep it. We found out that wasn't true. That made me the second Republican speaker of the house since the Civil War, ladies and gentlemen, because we betrayed the promise to the American people. Two years later, three years later, it actually made me a U.S. Senator because in 2010, it had just been proposed. And just anticipation of what was going to happen was enough to have a sea change election that swept Republicans into the majority for the second time in 100 years. Now Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare and betraying a promise. It is inescapable that this bill, in its current form, will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the Cabinet room when I was there with Finance, where he said: We can go after waste, fraud, and abuse on any programs. Now those amateurs who are advising him--not Dr. Oz; I am talking about White House healthcare experts--refuse to tell him that those instructions that were to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse all of a sudden eliminates a government program that is called the provider tax. We have morphed a legal construct that admittedly has been abused and should be eliminated into waste, fraud, and abuse. Money laundering, read the code. Look at how long it has been there. I was speaker of the house. I refused to do it. When I left North Carolina, I said we are not going to do a provider tax. I left it at 2\1/2\ percent. Now it is 6--a mistake on the part of the leadership. Frankly, I know my friends are probably going to think I am a little bit crazy here, but I actually passed a law that made it illegal to expand Medicaid. Why did I do that? Because I was convinced someday we would be here. I would have rather found a way to get more people on Medicaid at the standard FMAP than having this 90-10 match and watching it disappear and taking away desperately needed healthcare. Over the course of the evening, I may look for an opportunity to speak again, but I am telling the President that you have been misinformed. Your supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid. I love the work requirement. I love the other reforms in this bill. They are necessary, and I appreciate the leadership of the House for putting it in there. In fact, I like the work of the House so much that I wouldn't be having to do this speech if we simply started with the House mark. I have talked with my colleagues in North Carolina. I know that we can do that. And I believe that we can make sure that we do not break the promise of Donald J. Trump that he has made to people who are on Medicaid today. But what we are doing, because we have got a view on an artificial deadline on July 4 that means nothing but another date in time--we could take the time to get this right if we laid down the House mark of the Medicaid bill and fixed it. My friend and colleague from New Hampshire, I jumped in front of her, so I am only going to take another minute or two. But we owe it to the States to do the work to understand how these proposals affect them. How hard is that? I did it. How hard is it? How hard is it to sit down and ask the Medicaid office, ask the legislative staff, ask the independent hospital association what the impact is? If there is no negative impact, what is wrong with daylight? What is wrong with actually understanding what this bill does? I know what it does because I spent a career implementing complex systems, and then I had the privilege of being speaker of the house, and I implemented a limited government setting. And since I have been here, I have focused on bills and watched their implementation from the cradle until they are fully implemented. We owe it to the American people and I owe it to the people of North Carolina to withhold my affirmative vote until it is demonstrated to me that we have done our homework; we are going to make sure that we fulfill the promise; and then I can feel good about a bill that I am willing to vote for. But until that time, I will be withholding my vote.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 198 through 249, with the exception of Calendar No. 241, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk with the exception PN89; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I also ask indulgence for one more minute. This is really easy. Yesterday was my 38th wedding anniversary. I have convinced Susan Tillis to stay married to me for 38 years. I wish I was going to be with her and a couple of dozen family members down at the beach, but I am doing my work here, and I am going to stay until it is done. I also want to wish my grandson--they are celebrating his second birthday today down there at that same beach house--happy birthday. God bless my family. I love you.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am going to be brief. I promise, Senator Van Hollen, I am going to be about 5 minutes. This is an easy one. No. 1, I probably should have said this earlier. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I completely disagree with the narrative of the billionaire tax. Folks, this is actually reducing or making sure we don't raise taxes on people like me who grew up in trailer parks, didn't get my degree until I was 37, struggled to make ends meet. Those people benefit from that. I read the bill. I think most of you know I am detail-oriented. It is not what it seems. I also should have thanked Senator Crapo. He is a good friend, a great leader. I should have thanked him for the hard work he is doing. I got a little focused on the Medicaid failed baseline that is in the bill, but I should have started with that. Thanks to Mike Crapo and Senator Thune, whom I admire as our leader. I am here to talk about the production tax credit and the investment tax credit. It is another classic example where think tanks and people who haven't worked a day in business are setting policy in the White House without a clue about what they are potentially doing to our grid. A lot of people probably--I had Alex Weinstein, who is a self- described philosopher and expert in this area in my office--talking with three people, practitioners, that actually work in it. One is someone who specializes in power purchase agreements for large businesses. Walmart is one of the most sophisticated buyers of electrons in the world. They map out their power requirements years in advance. They want to make sure their food doesn't spoil and they have power running. They have already made several power purchase agreements with projects underway, folks. This bill is basically gutting it. Instead, everybody is high-fiving. What is amazing to me is the mark that we laid down the other day almost achieved the same level of cuts as the House bill, within $30 billion--within $30 billion. And instead of thinking that was progress, somebody got cute and decided to take away in construction and put it in service. Let me tell you why this is disingenuous. I was a partner at Pricewaterhouse and worked in utilities practice--large utilities, like TECO, Duke, Florida Progress, AEP. I know this industry. I understand baseload; I understand peaking; and I understand this technology, which is increasingly becoming viable because of storage as a part of augmenting baseload. Now, we have the Walmarts and all these data centers, and everything we wanted to bring back onshore putting in these power purchase agreements teed to these projects, like solar, in particular, like wind, and other innovative--renewable natural gas, methane, hydrogen. I can go on. But somebody, a self-described philosopher in a think tank that I admire a lot, but I realized, if you are a philosopher and in a think tank, you, by definition, have never worked in an operational role. You can't possibly understand what happens to this pipeline of power purchase agreements and the future of our grids. Here is what is going to happen. Wipe it clean. Put an excise tax in. Effectively throw the football into the end zone, spin it, walk away, do the party dance. And what you have done is create a blip in power service because there isn't going to be a gas-fired generator anytime soon. Folks, the generator is necessary to create power with gas--best case, 5 years from now. That is best case, 5 years from now. So you can't get that online and, at the same time, this whole pipeline is going down. So I want that philosopher to tell me that he understands how to plan out power over time and to let me know that when all these projects fail--some will make it, some will get subsidized, some will go bankrupt--so it won't be Armageddon, but it is going to be a problem. So they better get it right. It is another example, folks, when you rush a bill and don't think through the implementation, you don't get it right. I hope my colleagues recognize it is half-baked. It is another reason why we should go back to the House mark, get Medicaid right, so I can come onto the floor and tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why they are wrong on all the attributes of the House mark; why they are wrong on some of their characterizations of the tax bill; and why they will be wrong on an energy policy that makes sense. But I have to vote against the bill for my own party--that I have never parted from before--because we are rushing to an arbitrary deadline with people who have never worked a day in this industry. Maybe they philosophized and have written a few white papers on it but haven't gotten their hands dirty. This is another segment of the bill that needs to change.

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 have come to the floor, briefly, to talk about two subjects. One relates to a situation that I have been updated on of a gentleman who has been detained by ICE out in California, and I want to talk a little bit about it. We have to go back to ``Retrograde.'' When we were leaving Afghanistan several years ago, my office spent a lot of time working with various nonprofits and veterans' advocacy organizations to do our very best to get people out of Afghanistan who had served alongside U.S. servicemembers, and we met with a lot of success. Thank God for former special operators and others who were outside of the boundary. We were literally in a network of coordinating the positioning of families to get to the Kabul Airport--HKIA they call it. It was to get them to a specific gate and get them out, them and their families. Why were we doing that? It was because the people who helped special operators and forces in Afghanistan had marks on them. They would be murdered if they were found by the Taliban for supporting and working alongside American citizens, which they did, and many of them lost their lives. OK. I just became informed over the past day about the detention of a gentleman who had worked for the military as an interpreter, I think, for 3 years directly and then had worked with a contractor. Unfortunately, he was not one of the ones who got out. He was in northern Afghanistan at the time. He was not one of the ones who was fortunate enough to get out before the Taliban was allowed to overrun Kabul and subsequently murder and kill a number of people who had worked alongside Americans for many years. Well, it turns out this gentleman was in Afghanistan, as was his brother, and they had become targets because they knew that they were working alongside American servicemembers. They murdered his brother, so he decided to flee from Afghanistan to Iran, which was not a particularly friendly territory. Think about that. He was willing to go to Iran because it was a safer place to be than in Afghanistan, and then he subsequently got a humanitarian visa in Brazil. He did find his way to the United States. Unfortunately, he did so illegally. Instead of being in a safe third country, he did come here. He did violate our immigration laws, but he also stood alongside American servicemembers and was getting out of a horrible situation where, I think, anyone--everyone--would agree that he needed to get out of Afghanistan. I believe he used the CBP One app to try to apply for asylum, and he was paroled here under the Biden administration--and he did abuse the parole system while he was in office. At the end of the day, we have got a guy who served alongside American soldiers, who, undoubtedly, saved American lives in the process, and who was in this country illegally but who is now in a detention center in California. All I am trying to say, folks, is I want you to obey our laws. The majority of the time, if you come to this country illegally, then I want you to potentially be deported, but you can't cast everybody in that same light. He was also trying to apply for a special immigrant visa under the interpreter program. So all I am saying is things are moving quickly. It just disturbs me that we have got somebody in detention who served, by all accounts, admirably alongside American servicemen, and he probably saved their lives because those interpreters were embedded in the community. I think we owe it to this person to get him out of detention and into some status to determine what country he should go to. I am not necessarily arguing that he should stay in the United States, but I am arguing that he shouldn't be in detention in California after his service, indirectly and directly, to our country. That is all I have to say on that matter, but we are going to be tracking it very closely, and I thought it was important to say that on the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to begin the vote now scheduled for a later time.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess until 3:30 p.m. today. Without objection, the Senate, at 2:42 p.m., recessed until 3:30 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Banks).

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary North Carolinian. Since the early 1970s, Cynthia J. Butts, a resident of Murphy, NC, has served as a caregiver for her own family and the families of our Nation's Armed Forces. She has consistently offered care, compassion, and support to those around her. As a military spouse, Mrs. Butts understood firsthand the challenges of having a loved one deployed. Guided by her natural inclination to care for others, she provided invaluable support for families facing those same challenges. Her caregiving extended to several senior family members, and she is now the primary caregiver for her husband. As Mrs. Butts' community faced the challenges of COVID-19 and later Hurricane Helene, she once again rose to the occasion. Even as her husband's health declined and she battled cancer herself, she continued to offer love and support to all those around her. I am humbled to recognize Mrs. Butts for her lifelong dedication to caring for those around her. Our great State and Nation are grateful for her compassion and lifetime of service.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise during Police Week to honor the brave men and women in North Carolina and across the Nation who serve in law enforcement. Thousands of officers and their families come to our Nation's Capital every year to pay tribute to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our communities. Each name added to the memorial wall represents a story of courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. Unfortunately, North Carolinians know all too well about that kind of sacrifice. Today, I want to honor three heroes who we lost in North Carolina since last year's Police Week in May 2024. Last September, North Carolina was hit by Hurricane Helene, one of the worst natural disasters in the State's history. The historic flooding and devastation caused by Helene required an all-out effort by first responders, who were working around the clock. One of those first responders was Court Officer James Lau. Officer Lau's vehicle was swept away by unexpected floodwaters from a river, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Helene. Officer Lau was a Vietnam veteran, and his law enforcement career spanned nearly four decades across 3 States. In fact, Officer Lau was 75 years old. He was already fully retired, but he continued to serve his community as a security officer at the Macon County Courthouse. He is survived by his wife, five children, and four grandchildren. We also remember Major Michelle Lynn Quintero of the Madison County Sheriff's Office, who was only 48 years old. She was tragically killed by the same storm and fast-moving floodwaters caused by a dam that had overflowed and took down all the power, radio communication, and phone service. Major Quintero was swept downhill and was hit by a tree careening in the fast-moving water. She served more than 17 years with the Madison County Sheriff's Office. Major Quintero is survived by her husband, who also works in law enforcement, and she is survived by her two children, both of whom work for the Madison County Sheriff's Office. Late December of last year, on the day before Christmas Eve, Greensboro Police Officer Michael Horan was shot and killed while responding to a call about a man with a firearm in a grocery store. The murderer fled the scene and led law enforcement on a multicounty chase. The brave men from multiple law enforcement agencies apprehended the suspect on Interstate 40. Officer Horan was a reservist in the U.S. Coast Guard, where he earned multiple awards, including the Coast Guard Enlisted Person of the Year award in 2015 and 2019. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of chief warrant officer, earlier this year. Officer Horan served with the Greensboro Police Department for 7 years. He was only 44 years old and is survived by his wife and children. While we can't stop natural disasters or accidents, lawmakers can play a role in helping to reduce the intentional targeting of law enforcement. That is why I continue to push for the passage of the Protect and Serve Act. This is legislation that I introduced that makes it a Federal crime to intentionally harm or attempt to harm a law enforcement officer. It also gives prosecutors new tools to penalize criminals who target law enforcement. Officers go to work every day prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their communities, and they need our support now more than ever. I had a colleague of mine in the Judiciary Committee today make a great point. That uniform now includes a bulletproof vest. They know what they have signed up for. They wear that as a matter of procedure because every single day they go out there, they assume they may be shot at. I am asking my colleagues to consider the importance of this legislation and encourage them to take a stand on behalf of law enforcement officers who are no longer with us. There is a reason the Protect and Serve Act is supported by law enforcement groups across the Nation: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Police Officers' Defense Coalition, the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Major County Sheriffs association. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know why it is hard for any Member of the U.S. Senate to get behind this bill. It simply says that we are going to raise the stakes for anybody who would knowingly do harm to a police officer. To every officer serving today: Thank you for your courage. You have earned my unending gratitude. By supporting this bill, Members of the U.S. Senate can demonstrate their enduring gratitude to law enforcement. By not supporting it--I don't know what that says, but I know it is something that in North Carolina and among law enforcement agencies, it is not good. To the families of the fallen: Your loss is shared by a grateful nation. We will never forget your loved ones' service, nor their sacrifice. God bless them. God bless law enforcement. And may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. TILLIS

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I understand the Senate has received H.J. Res. 75 from the House.

Mr. TILLIS. I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 75.

Mr. TILLIS. I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Meador nomination be waived.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Hoekstra nomination; further, that at 6 p.m., the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Johnson and Cabrera nominations in the order listed and that if cloture is invoked on the nominations individually, the postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on the confirmations of the nominations as well as the motion to invoke cloture on the Atkins nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, no earlier than Wednesday, April 9; finally, that if the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I also ask that the order be amended to include the Huckabee nomination.