Thom Tillis

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Robert Higdon, Jr., and congratulate him on his appointment as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Bobby earned both his law degree and undergraduate degree from Wake Forest University and has a decorated career in public service and in private practice. Prior to law school, he worked for then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and for Senator John East. Upon graduating from law school, Bobby served as a law clerk to Judge Eugene H. Phillips on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. After working for several years in private practice, he began a successful career as a Federal prosecutor. From 1991 until 2015, Bobby served in the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of roles, including chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of North Carolina. He has vast experience investigating, prosecuting, and advising on criminal cases, ranging from violent crime and drug trafficking to white collar and public integrity crimes. Aside from his sterling legal career, Bobby is an active member of his community, inspiring and helping others. He serves his church as a volunteer and a Sunday School teacher, and he has mentored the next generation of lawyers by coaching in various mock trial competitions. His example reminds us that our roles as public servants extend beyond the office. It was an honor to recommend Bobby Higdon to President Trump. Anyone who works with him knows he is a dedicated professional who has extensive legal knowledge and expertise. In addition, he is widely respected in the law enforcement community, and these relationships will be incredibly valuable as he takes on this important role. Bobby understands the challenges and issues facing North Carolina, and I know that he will continue to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office with dignity and respect.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, while Senator Enzi is on the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership in the Budget Committee and taking us through this very important vote today. I want to talk a little bit in terms that maybe people can understand what is going on here and what will be going on over the next few days. What we are doing right now is passing a budget. Our budget is no different than your household budget, when you sit down and you figure out, over some period of time, how much money you have and how much money you need to spend, where maybe you need to spend more and maybe you need to spend less. That is all we are doing with this budget. This budget is not the tax reform bill. That will come after we pass a budget, but if we don't pass this budget, there is no possible way we can actually pass tax reform. That is why I support this budget. That is why I will work to defeat any amendments that will prevent this budget from being passed. Then we can start having an honest discussion about what we need to do around tax reform. I know the Senator from South Carolina did a great job, as he always does on the floor, talking about why he supports tax reform. He is somebody we should really listen to. He is somebody who came up through truly humble means. You have people come on this floor and they talk about how the people who are supporting tax reform are just doing this for the billionaires and the rich. I would encourage you to go out to the internet and take a look at Senator Scott's story and tell me if that is somebody predisposed to helping the rich. He is here to help the little guy. He is here to get the economy going so people can get back to work. He is here to actually create opportunities for wages to go up. He is here to actually do what we have been promising for 20 years and haven't done-- almost 30 years. Over that span of time, America has lost traction as the greatest economy that has ever existed. This tax reform measure, after we pass the budget, is to really get to a point to where States like West Virginia--you heard Senator Capito talk about 95 percent of the jobs created in West Virginia are small businesses. How could anybody sincerely come to this floor and say Senator Capito is only supporting this for the wealthy corporations? They just don't exist in any large number in West Virginia. In my State, 80 percent of the jobs that are created are small businesses as well. So how anybody could suggest that there are those of us coming to the floor just talking about tax breaks for the rich and for corporations really need to go back and look at our States. Look at who is struggling and whom we are here trying to help. We get to the tax reform bill after we pass the budget. That is why I am going to support the budget. Now, to some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the Founding Fathers did strive to create a more perfect Union, but they created an imperfect democratic process. This is the sausage factory we call democracy. It is not intended to be perfect, nor does it ever produce anything that is perfect legislation--something that is done and you never come back to it. Those who come to this floor and say: Unless I can have that perfect, I am not willing to support the good, they really need to go back and rethink why they are here. We are here to start fulfilling promises. You don't do it by coming onto this floor and saying: I really want to do tax reform but only if it is my perfect solution. You start by making progress. Then you build on that progress. You start getting the economy to grow, and you use those resources to better fund the most challenged people we have in this Nation, use those resources to grow the economy and give younger people an opportunity to realize the American dream the way I did back in the 1980s. That is why we have to pass this budget. That is why we have to set aside our personal preferences for something far better than probably will ever come out of this Chamber but something good that begins to fulfill the promises we made to the American people. When we get past the budget, we are going to do something called vote-arama tomorrow. Vote-arama is an interesting process, mainly because it is a bunch of votes that don't mean anything. There are going to be people who come up here, and they will file a bill. It will go up or down. Even if it goes up, it doesn't have the force of law. Tomorrow, if you are here, it is a lot like going to good theater. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the final vote, and that is the vote on the budget. That is something every single person in this Chamber should support. Then we need to move on to tax reform that has a meaningful, lasting impact for the poorest, most challenged people in this country. It is not about tax breaks for the rich. It is not about tax breaks for corporations. It is about small businesses in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina or across this Nation that need help. It is about those employees that, if we do this right, will be making more money. They will have more money to pay their bills. It is about making a conscious decision about how much money we can spend on Medicaid and to be absolutely certain we can fulfill the promise to people challenged by it. It is about fulfilling the promise to people on Social Security and Medicare, to make sure those programs can fulfill the promises we made. This isn't about absolute cuts to Medicaid. This is about how much it should grow every single year to be absolutely certain those programs are going to be there 10, 15, and 20 years from now. If you have an opportunity to sit up in the Gallery and pay attention to these words, go back and really fact check some of what is being said. Go back and look at the backgrounds of some of the Members on this side of the aisle who support tax reform. They grew up as the little guy. They grew up in challenged situations. They represent States where the vast majority of the people in those States are, themselves, challenged. Anybody who can sincerely come down here and say this is about the rich, this is about the corporations, come spend time in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, States across this Nation. I come from the Southeast, but they are the ones that come out of my mouth. I worry about all those little businesses. I worry about all those challenged people. This budget lays the groundwork for us to actually put meaningful policy in place for the first time in about 30 years that is sincerely attempting to fulfill the promises the politicians make in this Chamber every single day. I hope all of our Members will come down here and accept the fact that perfect doesn't happen, but some good can happen. Good begins by passing this budget, and it continues by passing tax reform that will help the most challenged among us. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Like last week, I didn't plan on speaking on this subject, so my staff is probably wondering once again what their boss is going to say. But I was thinking that maybe we could translate a little bit of what we are trying to do with tax reform, because we talk about tax rates, exemptions, exceptions, and simplification--all this stuff that is important because it gets baked into the bill--but we don't spend a lot of time explaining why we are trying to do what we are doing. The last time we had real, meaningful, impactful tax reform was back in 1986. That is when Republicans and Democrats came together and decided that the stagnant economy that I grew up in--I graduated from high school in 1978. I didn't immediately go to college. I moved away from home when I was 17 years old, and I was working. It was an economy that was not unlike today's. In many respects, it may have been a little bit worse. The environment was the same. Iran was behaving badly, and Russia was behaving badly. We had sort of the same sort of global environment that we have today. We had the threats that we have to confront every single day, and we had the threat to the future of a generation. I mean, literally, people had no earthly idea, if they were getting an education, whether they would be able to get a job because the job-creation numbers when I was 26 years old were terrible. People were worried about whether they could pay for college. So why are we doing tax reform? We are doing tax reform because it is time for the American economy to grow back to what it is capable of doing, what it has done in the past. We need tax reform so we can create economic expansion that lets us pay down our debt, which many people in the military say is the single greatest threat to our national security. We need tax reform and we need to grow the economy because we owe it to this generation to have the same opportunities that I did. It can be done, but we have to do it probably through reconciliation because right now, even though many of the proposals that we are putting forward--the tax rate and the kinds of policies we are putting forward have been supported by our colleagues and many of my friends on the other side of the aisle. For some reason, they don't make sense anymore. They made sense back in 1986 when Democrats and Republicans joined together to do tax reform. If you were in your midtwenties then, you saw prosperity unlike anything we have seen right up to today. That was the last time we saw great growth in our economy. We need to get back to providing those same sorts of opportunities. People will tell you that we are not giving a cut to the little guy or the working man. Well, one thing you don't see when you see the percentage rates that we are talking about on individual tax rates that we are targeting is that there will be tens of thousands of people who will pay zero taxes. There is a actually a zero tax bracket. There are people who, because of the exceptions and exemptions that we are proposing, will actually fall below having a Federal tax liability. We need to talk about that. We need to recognize that we have to provide relief to the entire spectrum, from the businesses that hire people and create jobs to the working families and the people who don't make enough where we can take any more away from them because they need it to pay their bills. They need to pay their electric bills, their utility bills, their school tuition, and all the other things that working families are struggling to do today, just as I was struggling to do back in 1986. So I hope this Congress will deliver on the promise we made last year to cut taxes, to get this economy moving again, and to provide the same opportunities for the generation going to school and the people who aren't in school, who are struggling to make a living--the same opportunities that I got when I was that 26-year-old back in 1986. We can do it. I know we can do it because we have done it before. It is a promise we made and a promise we need to keep. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I was presiding when the colloquy started with my colleagues here to talk about tax reform. I had not intended to speak today, and I am sure my staffers are scrambling, wondering what the boss will say. I want to weigh in with this discussion mainly because of the personal perspective of a leader who has seen the positive impacts of having the courage, focus, and discipline to deliver on tax reform. Back in 2011, I was in my third term. Republicans had the majority, and I became speaker of the house. When I came in February of 2011, it was reported to me that we had a $2.5 billion structural deficit. We had the fourth highest unemployment rate in the Nation and we had 6 months to figure out how to balance the budget. So it was counterintuitive to a lot of people that we would spend time on regulatory reform and tax reform--particularly tax reform--reducing the amount of revenue coming in at the same time we were in a deficit ourselves. But in the first 6 months that we were in the majority, we cut the sales tax. Then we went over a 2-year period, even with that $2.5 billion structural deficit, to make the changes in the corporate tax and the income tax. It took North Carolina from the 44th most taxed State--in other words, there were only 5 States ahead of us for the highest tax burden in the United States--now down to No. 12. It was one of the worst growing economies, and it now ranks in the top five in the Nation, and it is one of the fastest growing economies in the Nation. We created over 250,000 jobs and actually put North Carolina on the map by all references--CEO measures and by independent organizations. It is the State where businesses want to set up and do business. We took the corporate tax from 6.9 down to 2.5. We took personal income tax rates from 7.75 down to 5.49. We got people back to work. Along the way, we had our challenges. Everybody in Washington is for tax reform. They are for tax relief. They will come into your office and tell you: Let's get her going. Then on the side they will say: except for that one righteous exemption I may need. We have to have Members who have the courage to do tax reform that helps working families, that creates jobs, and that silences the people who want to take this exemption or that exemption away, so we do what is right for the generation that is about to look for jobs and the people who need a job today. They want their businesses to grow. They want their economies to thrive. They want the United States to be the strong, great economy that it can be. It is going to take courage. It is going to take discipline. It is going to take time--but only so much time. I believe this Congress, this Senate, over the course of a few months, if we focus on it and with the support of the President and in collaboration with the House, can get this done. We have to get it done. We promised the American people last year that if we had majorities, we would do what we had to do to deliver on this promise. It can be done. A lot of times, people ask me what keeps me up at night. I tell them two things: coffee and the national debt. Coffee is for the obvious reasons, but why the national debt? I will tell you why. Because when I have people on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs come into the Senate Armed Services Committee and say the single greatest threat to our national security is our debt, we should take notice. These are people who are skilled in warfare. They are people who know how to take the fight to the enemy. When they think the greatest threat to this Nation is our national debt, we had better take that seriously. How do you resolve the national debt? You grow the economy. How do you grow the economy? You create jobs and help businesses throughout. How do you do that? You do that through tax reform. You also take criticism that is going to be waged by some people on the far left when we talk about corporate tax reform. They are going to say: How could you favor the big guy over the little guy? I don't know about you all, but I worked for companies before in my life. When I was 19 and living in a trailer park, I was working for a corporation. I was a little guy working for that corporation. Fortunately, in the 1980s, we had a President who had the wisdom to know that, if you reduced the tax burden on corporations, more little guys like me--that 19-year-old living in a trailer park--could get a job--a better-paying job--and, ultimately, have enough money to put himself through school. So when we get into this argument, don't take the bait by some people who will say that because we are focusing on corporate taxes and reducing the tax burden on businesses, that is somehow a guy in a suit trying to help out a business. That is a guy who has worked his way from that trailer park now into the U.S. Senate and benefited when Congress had the courage to reduce taxes and get the economy back on track. That is what we better do. That is what we promised. That is what we are here to do today. The time is now to get it done. The President has shown wisdom in the blueprint--and our leadership here, in terms of the broad strokes about what tax reform needs to look like. Now it is our job--each and every individual Member of the Senate and the House--to deliver on the promise to produce tax reform to help the little guy and to get this economy going to be the great economy that it has been in the past, and I have every reason to believe that it will be so in the future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I would like to express my support for the ongoing deliberative process to address the very valid concerns raised with sections 881 and 886 of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Earlier today, I filed an amendment that seeks to clarify the committee's intent with respect to open source requirements and intellectual property rights and protections for U.S. technology vendors who collaborate with the Department of Defense. I want to be clear that this language does not represent the ultimate fix, but rather a step in the right direction as we embark on a longer policy discussion in conference. I want to thank the chairman, my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and my counterparts on the House Armed Services Committee for their commitment to continue this conversation in conference. It is essential that we provide both the Department and industry the proper tools, protections, and incentives necessary to continue these mutually beneficial partnerships on the commercial off- the-shelf and the custom-developed software side. I am confident we can reach consensus and send the President language that clearly articulates a fair and sustainable model for existing and future contracts. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, I would like to make a statement for the record about an item of special interest related to the Department of Defense's use of its intellectual property rights in certain drug products within the committee report on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. The committee report contains language that directs the Defense Department to exercise its rights under the Bayh-Dole Act ``to authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or other medical technology is higher in the United States'' as compared to prices in foreign countries. This language is of concern to me for several reasons. The DOD and other Federal agencies face significant obstacles such as low procurement quantities, high regulatory risk, and complex Federal contracting regulations when working to attract the top vaccine and drug developers as partners in medical countermeasure development to protect the warfighter and America's citizens. Diluting intellectual property protections as a means of price control will not only fail to meet its objective, but it could significantly hamper the government's efforts to develop these critical medical capabilities. The report language could lead to decreased investments in medical countermeasures development and a drop-off in industry partnerships with DOD that can ultimately result in few new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. Bayh-Dole has created a fragile ecosystem of collaboration among Federal agencies, public research institutions, and private industry, resulting in the commercialization of inventions for use by the American people, especially in the area of medical countermeasures often developed specifically for our servicemembers and veterans. The idea of regulating the price of a commercialized invention was never contemplated by Congress when passing the Bayh-Dole Act. I have concerns that the committee report language could chill medical innovation by raising the risk of a Federal partnership to a level that is unacceptable for many private entities. This is problematic for small businesses that have less capital to risk on products subject to unpredictable price controls. While the availability of medical innovations to the American public remains an area of great interest to me, I strongly believe that we should pursue more appropriate and effective ways to achieve this goal without stifling innovation or discouraging public private partnerships.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am honored to represent over half of all U.S. Special Forces. I would like to address the topic of working to close a growing gap in understanding, assessment, and prediction between traditional and nontraditional strategies for human performance optimization as it relates to our military servicemembers and overall readiness. I support Department of Defense efforts designed to simultaneously improve the overall health and wellness of uniformed personnel and sustain the operational readiness levels of the respective military services. I am encouraged by efforts initiated at both Special Operations Command, SOCOM, and the respective SOCOM component commands and am requesting that these commands consider additional steps to incorporate new ideas for the troops. I would like to see the Department of Defense examine the impact of recent trends in the health and performance industry to emphasize greater reliance on natural movement, full-range body motion, nontraditional gravity-aided suspension exercises, and nontraditional resistance training for optimizing an individual's state of fitness, long-term durability, resilience, and overall wellness. It is important to note that such approaches can produce significant and measurable improvements in muscular strength, endurance, motor control, and the maximum cognitive and workload performance of individual military operators. The potential for an improvement in comprehensive readiness and lethality of Special Forces is significant. Efforts to improve muscular strength, endurance, and the workload performance for individuals under more natural and realistic training scenarios coupled with the establishment and documentation of optimum and minimum physical thresholds can improve overall unit readiness and sustainability among and throughout the ranks of special operations forces. Therefore, I would encourage the Department of Defense, and especially Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, MARSOC, to identify and describe common denominators with respect to key performance indicators, KPI, among MARSOC operators, develop algorithmic tools for predicting appropriate individual physical and cognitive loads, and examine the efficacy of potential intervention programs to minimize discriminatory KPI gaps among MARSOC personnel. Let's close the gap in understanding between traditional and emerging strategies for human performance optimization. I strongly believe it could have a positive impact on the readiness of our honorable men and women in uniform to win conflicts.

Mr. TILLIS

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

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

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 8:30 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees and that at 8:30 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Schumer or designee motion to commit, which is at the desk, followed by a vote in relation to the Heller amendment No. 502.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a Hearing on ``Force Multipliers: How Transportation and Supply Chain Stakeholders are Combatting Human Trafficking.'' committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity.'' committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, at 10:05 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Consideration of the Taylor Force Act.'' committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' committee on indian affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing. committee on aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nourishing our Golden Years: How Proper and Adequate Nutrition Promote Healthy Aging and Positive Outcomes.'' subcommittee on east asia, the pacific, international cybersecurity policy The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 2:15 p.m., to hold a Human Rights, and the Rule of Law.'' committee on the judiciary subcommittee on border security and immigration The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 12, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Problem of Visa Overstays: A Need for Better Tracking and Accountability.''

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m., Tuesday, June 27; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; the Moran amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 174.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 187, submitted earlier today.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Wyden, Merkley, Peters, and Sanders.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 8; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 110, S. 722, postcloture; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 722.

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. TILLIS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I think the Senator from Oklahoma is going to go into some additional details, and the Senator from Wyoming did a great job of summarizing some of the positive results that have come from our actions. I want to refer to his resolutions of disapproval for regulations that we feel were an overreach. When we went through the 14 votes--we actually had 15, but we were not able to succeed in 1 last regulation of disapproval yesterday-- there were arguments put forth against our disapproving these regulations. It was as if we were completely deregulating the subject matter area that we were focused on, but that was not the case. What we were trying to do is eliminate the duplication and the costs associated with layering regulations on top of regulations. We have a lot of discussion around here about tax reform, and we need to do that, but if we look at the regulatory burden on businesses and homeowners and State and local governments, there is a smart, right- size way to implement regulations, and there is a costly, complex, wrong way to implement regulations. So I am proud we were able to get 14 resolutions of disapproval completed. I think they were regulations that were not necessary. They are obviously areas that if Congress ever needed to act, we could go back and implement regulations, if necessary. What we ended up doing through this action over the past couple of months with the administration is reduce regulatory burdens by $67 billion, and we have eliminated some 56 million paperwork hours. We are eliminating, we are cutting redtape, and that is a good thing. I appreciate all the Members who worked hard on getting this together. I particularly appreciate my staff--Bill Bode and Torie Ness in particular--who worked hard with the other Senate offices to see what kind of support we could get for moving these regulatory disapprovals forward. I thank my fellow Members and the administration for working with us to fulfill our promise, which is to right-size government and get our economy going again. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the new FDA Commissioner, or, more specifically, the role that the agency must play in tackling one of the biggest health crises of our day, one that I have personal experience with. Unless we act decisively, this crisis will only grow in terms of the staggering human and economic costs in the future. That crisis is the Alzheimer's epidemic in this Nation. The reason I am talking about Alzheimer's is it is truly a terrible condition that affects patients, their families, and communities across the Nation. I learned firsthand about Alzheimer's disease when my mother was robbed of many of her Golden Years at a relatively early age, in her seventies. Currently, more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's, including an estimated 160,000 in my own State of North Carolina. Estimates project the number of Alzheimer's patients to grow to 16 million by 2050, with an annual cost of more than $1 trillion to the healthcare system. Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. It is a current and growing problem. It is the only top 10 disease for causes of death that cannot be prevented. It can't be cured. We can't even slow the pace of the disease. Simply put, we need a war on Alzheimer's disease like we have on cancer. As a country, we must take the fight to this awful disease. This should be one of our highest priorities, to support the discovery and development of new medicines for the millions of patients who currently have Alzheimer's and the millions more who may develop it in the future. We need medicines to slow the progression of the disease. We need medicines to reverse its affects. We need medicines to cure Alzheimer's disease. One day, we need medicines to prevent it in the first place. That is where the FDA comes in. The new Commissioner must make Alzheimer's an urgent priority. Obviously, the science of developing new medicines and technologies is complicated under any circumstances. Those challenges are only compounded by the fact that we still do not fully understand the disease, its causes, or how to stop it, but the FDA does hard things and they often do them very well. The new Commissioner must ask tough questions of the agency: Are they doing everything they possibly can to encourage the development of safe and effective new drugs for Alzheimer's? Are they using all the tools at their disposal and using them flexibly to advance this goal? Do they have the right policies to be facilitators of and not barriers to important efforts to innovate in this space? I recently visited with Dr. Gottlieb in my office and was pleased to hear the battle against Alzheimer's is a mission-critical item for him. I assume that pervades the FDA. I want to be clear. I do not know the answers to the questions related to FDA's specific regulatory policies related to Alzheimer's. I think those determinations are best left to scientific and medical experts, but I know the status quo, the current standard of care, and the set of FDA-approved treatment options is not enough for patients or our Nation. Inaction is not acceptable. America is at its finest when we come together to do big things. Now is the time to commit to stopping the suffering and death from Alzheimer's. The FDA cannot do this alone. This is an all-hands-on-deck kind of battle, but FDA will play a critical role in tackling this vital public health priority. I was pleased to vote for Dr. Gottlieb's confirmation yesterday. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we are doing everything we can to defeat Alzheimer's. For those of us who have been and will continue to be Alzheimer's caretakers, I hope we will see a cure in our lifetime. Those who are afflicted by the disease deserve it. It is a fiscal crisis we can avert. With the right focus by the FDA and this Congress, I am absolutely convinced this is a disease we can take the war to and win the war in our lifetime in the near future. I encourage the FDA and all of my Members to stand in battling this terrible disease so we can end it once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Utah and his eloquent comments about the Supreme Court nominee. I would like to associate myself with everything he said. He has the kind of experience and insight that I hope so many Members on both sides of the aisle will listen to. I am here to talk about the spirit of bipartisanship and getting things done. I submitted an editorial to my local newspaper down in Charlotte a couple of weeks ago. The whole premise of my opinion was that in November the voters did not vote for a Republican mandate; they voted for a results mandate. They are tired of the gridlock they see up here in Washington. They are tired of people promising things they know they can't deliver. They are wanting for a leader in President Trump and in the congressional leadership people who want to produce results. They want people who want to work across the aisle and come up with bipartisan solutions to a lot of the problems that confront this Nation. You would have thought that I changed my registration and became a member of the minority party with the criticism that I got from people on my side of the aisle. I was called a RINO. For those of you who don't know what that is, that is a Republican in name only. When I was the speaker of the house in North Carolina, the last thing I was ever called was a RINO. We worked on a conservative agenda that made sense. We gained the support of a number of Democrats along the way. North Carolina is a lot better place because of the courage of those folks who were willing to work across the aisle to help our great State, to go from one of the laggards in terms of economic performance to one of the leading States in the Nation for economic performance over the course of about 4 years. I don't really care about the criticism from the talking heads--from the far left or the far right--because I consider them one of the great threats that we have to actually turning this Congress around and getting things done. I am going to do everything I can to reach across the aisle and produce solutions to some of the most vexing problems we have. There are solutions within our reach. If you think about immigration reform, there is a 40-year-old failure on the part of the Republicans and Democrats to address the immigration problem. Everybody wants their position on one end of the spectrum or the other versus what the American people want or a solution to the problem--a solution that makes sure the American worker is respected and taken care of, that our borders are secure, and that we end this 40-year-old failure on the part of Washington to solve the problem. They want solutions on criminal justice reform. We have many people in prison who, after they get out, are more likely to go back into prison because we really haven't thought about commonsense ways to help them enter back into society and have productive lives, beyond just going back into a criminal enterprise. We can solve that problem, but we can only solve it if we have Republicans and Democrats come together--and silence the voices who want their perfect version based on their ideology--on a solution that makes sense to the average American. The agenda that we want to complete can only be completed if we have people who have the courage to come to this floor and do what I consider to be political courage. It is not courageous for me as a Republican to stand up to a Democrat and oppose their view. That is my job. I am a conservative. I am a proud conservative. Courage, in terms of someone who would walk onto this floor, is someone who can look at a person--a fellow Republican and conservative--and say: We are not going to go where you want to go because we are here to get something done-- not just to make speeches, not to talk about an unachievable goal, but to make progress on things that are sound, conservative policies. But maybe we have to make some compromises. Maybe we have to go a little bit further than we want because we want to get something done. We want to pass things that are good. If we wait to only pass things that are perfect, then we will be guilty of doing exactly what many other people have done in this body--to promise a lot and deliver very little. I took a lot of hits for my op-ed and my public comments about bipartisanship, about compromise, about respect, about reaching across the aisle. I am willing to take those hits because I would rather go down as someone who is willing to go get something done than someone who is willing to only settle for the perfect, knowing that perfect never happens here. The Founding Fathers didn't expect perfect. The Founding Fathers introduced defects, if you read the Federalist Papers, that prevented any one ambition from prevailing. To have ambition set against ambition is foundational to our democratic institution here. We are not going after perfect. We are going to go after good. I was really excited. I got some great comments from my friends across the aisle. I thought this is an area where we can work together. There are a lot of areas where we can't work together because our world views are so different. Let's not focus on those. Let's focus on things on which we can work together. I thought we had a minority leader who was actually committed to that. At least that is what I thought. But I have to say I am beginning to wonder if we haven't gotten a different sort of view of the leadership. Comments today do not reflect the comments of not so long ago. In 2012, the minority leader said: Everything doesn't have to be a fight. Legislation is an art of working together, building consensus, compromise. I could have written that. I absolutely agree with that principle. That is why I got criticized by folks on my side of the aisle--or the talking heads, anyway, the conservative talking heads--because I wasn't willing to take a purist position. Now, you fast forward. And the minority leader made this comment when he was not the minority leader. But today this is what we are hearing just within the last month: ``The only way we're going to work with him''--that would be President Trump--``is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.'' Does that sound like bipartisanship? Does that sound like somebody who wants to reach across the aisle and work on immigration reform, criminal justice reform, sentencing reform--things where I believe there is a majority of people in this body, as many as 60 or more votes--who would be willing to move legislation? I don't think so. We have to make sure that people like this are accountable to the American people, the so-called real people. I will get to that in a little bit. That is not bipartisanship. That is not leadership. That is divisiveness. That is gridlock. That is the stuff that inspired me to run in 2014. That is the thing I am against, whether it is a Democrat saying it or a Republican saying it. I think we can also expect more of what really stems--or what you can infer from the latest position of the minority leader, more gridlock. We will go to the next chart. The sort of a double standard here, duplicity, really drives me crazy. Situational ethics I will call it or situational principles. On the one hand, you stand firm on something. You fast forward because you didn't like the outcome of the election, and suddenly you no longer take that same position. People can rationalize it any way they want to, but I think the real people, the real voters, the folks out there, see this for what it is. It is taking a so-called principled position when that particular position benefits your agenda, not necessarily something that is bipartisan, something that actually serves a political agenda. The Supreme Court, I think that is what we are going to see here. I have presided. I have been a freshman for 2 years. We get to preside a lot. I get to hear a lot of these floor speeches. I heard endless speeches talking about how we needed to do our job, how we actually-- here is another quote from the now minority leader: The Supreme Court handles the people's business. As President Reagan put it, every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done. Now what we are hearing is that same group of people say they are going to use every lever they can to stop us from seating a ninth Supreme Court Justice. What has changed, except for the fact that you are not happy with the outcome of the election? So I think we need to recognize that the American people are sick of Democrats and Republicans promising things, but if they don't get their way in the election outcome, if they are not able to set the agenda, then they are no longer interested in bipartisanship. I have a lot of confidence in this body. I have a lot of confidence in a number of people on the other side of the aisle. I think there is a pent-up demand among Members here who want to see results--not perfect, but good. I am going to do everything I can to work with those. I will do an equal amount of time focused on those who I don't think are acting in the best interests of their own constituents. They are not listening to the real people in America, the real people who did not endorse a Republican mandate in November. They said: It is time to stop. It is time to get things done. It is time to treat people with respect on both sides of the aisle. It is time to accept good, and it is time to stop pretending that this body can produce perfect. Now, I have to say I am glad to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting to look at the so-called real people. Last week, the Republicans were in Philadelphia. We were at a retreat. At the same time, there was a group of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were meeting up in West Virginia. There was a Politico article that I thought was particularly interesting. This was a part of the published agenda that was reported by Politico, an agenda that says they are getting people together. They want to talk about speaking to those who feel invisible in rural America, listening to those who feel unheard, and a discussion with Trump voters. There was another entry in the agenda, I believe, that says talking to real people. I am here to talk to the real people tonight. You have Members in the Senate who want to get things done. We know you are hurting. We know the government has failed you, Democrats and Republicans. We have failed to actually take the tough votes. We have failed to deliver. It is time for us to deliver. I believe we have a President who expects us to reach across the aisle and solve problems. I am going to be a part of solving that problem. We have a great opportunity here with the Supreme Court nomination. It is time to get past the election results, get over it, and get to work. It is time to recognize that the real people, the people who sent a mandate here--but the mandate was not Republican, it wasn't far right, it wasn't far left--all they said was produce results. I am going to produce results. I am going to expect my Members to produce results. I am going to go into my conference, when it looks like we are going down the path of taking an intransigent position that does not produce a result, and I am going to call them out. I am also going to hold my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to the same standard. I am going to hope to find folks who want to solve the immigration problem in a respectful, methodical way. I want to work with people on the other side of the aisle who want to solve the criminal justice problem, the sentencing reform, the judicial reform bills that are moving through that have, I believe, far more than 60 votes to support it. We have to work on these. We will save the other ones where we simply can't find common ground, and those will be the arguments that we can have that can influence future elections, but for the next 2 years, let's get work done. Let's actually be able to go back to our State and proudly proclaim that we had the courage to stand up to people on our side of the aisle when getting to perfect was at the expense of doing something good. If we do that, we will have one of the most productive legislative sessions. The 115th Congress could go down in history as one of the most productive Congresses in the last 100 years. I want to be a part of that story. I want to go back to North Carolina and be proud of what I did, proud of the compromises, proud of the bipartisan relationships that we did to solve these problems. I am going to go to other States who may be up for reelection in 2018 and either thank the Members on the other side of the aisle who worked with us for those solutions or campaign against them because they failed to actually look at their constituents and do the right thing. There are a lot of opportunities here. I, for one, am going to spend every waking hour to make sure I do my part, and I can be proud of the work I did to produce results, to answer that mandate by the electorate that came in November to produce results. I have every confidence that there are enough Members here to join us. With that, we will do great things. We will fulfill the promises we made. There is nothing more rewarding than being able to look your constituents in the eye and say: We did it. We listened to you. We compromised. We treated people with respect. We delivered. I call on all my Members to think again about what they can do to be a part of providing the solutions. I look forward to working with them in this Congress.

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I appreciate that, but the reason I directed the question about the objection to the motion of the Senator from Oregon is that there seems to be maybe selective application of a strategy that the Senator from West Virginia is trying to do to get a measure passed. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3084

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio. I believe, if I have the facts correct, that it was the majority leader who pushed for the patch into the CR. I am not quite sure I agree with some of the specifics that were put forth by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, but I would like to move on. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2763

Mr. TILLIS

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, December 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 2943 postcloture; finally, that all postcloture time on the conference report to accompany S. 2943 expire at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.