mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the tax cuts that we passed a l wee -- we passed t week, whether you're from north carolina or elsewhere, the american people are going to benefit from t you're going to hear all kinds of interesting claims made here on this senate floor. i was just presiding, mr. president, before you relieved me from the chair. i heard one of the such speeches you're going to hear several times. we passed this tax bill so that we can actually now go cut support for people who need the government safety net. that sounds absurd. it sounds absurd on several levels. the number one, it is not a very kind thing to do. and, number two, it is not a very wise thing to. why on earth would anybody think -- they're saying, we're passing a tax increase on working families and americans. what they forget is the ... maybe seven or eight years ago if we decide to raise taxes. highly unlikely. but in the here and now, and next year after this tax bill gets passed, working families are going to get a tax c

mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. i also want to thank chairman grassley for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to sit down and talk to a diverse group of people to talk about a problem that we must solve. senator grassley did such a good job of describing some of the technical aspects of the secure act and the bridge act and other legislation that actually came together to create the secure act. i want to back up and talk a little bit about what we're actually trying to do here. there are two key components to this bill and to efforts that have gone before the point that we've introduced this bill that i think are very important. the first one is the daca program, the deferred action for childhood arieftion. it was -- arrivals. it was implemented by president obama. what president obama sought to do was to provide some certainty for jiang adults -- for young adults and children who were brought across the border through the decisions of their parents or guardian, to cross the border illegally. today the

mr. tillis' question, you asked about things that the congress could do. i would tell you in the case of the handgun, through that 18-month process, we had promote typed, tested, demonstrated, used soldiers selected the handgun and we had a protest. to get rid of frivolous protests would be very helpful. all it does is add time, cost and delays giving the soldier what he or she needs to being successful. >> senator king? >> perhaps the handgun example can remind me of my father's advice that even the worst person can serve as a bad example. so maybe we can learn from that. first, somebody at the pentagon has a sense of humor to send you here on your third day. it will only get better from here, i can assure you. mr. chairman, this is a very important hearing and i want to thank you for calling it. and secondly, to the entire panel, this is one of the better or i'd say best hearings i've seen on this subject in five years. you are clearly focused on this problem. secretary wilson, the -- what you toilld us about the light attack aircraft and the process is

tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for being here. also thank you for being so generous with your time and meetings you've had in my office. i covered some of this in the meeting we had in our office but i want to go whack to it again. you've been nominated to a position where you are ultimately going to be, i believe, when you are confirmed randy coral's boss. you also said in the private, in our meeting in the office, that you are going to rely a lot on him to take a look at regulatory reform issues, regulatory right sizing. and in the first meeting any boss has with somebody they're working with, they try to give them some direction. the maltally, what are you going to talk about when it comes to recalibration of regs post crisis, i'm kind of curious on your comments on bosal community. start with that. and regulations, it's not about repealing regulations, some of them need to exist, and if they had been in place in 2008 we probably wouldn't have had a crisis the magnitude we had. but almost it's as if we have the too many people

tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. mr. brandon, i want to go back to the timeline for looking at the regulations that could be promulgated regarding bump stocks. can you give me an idea for the length of time this could take before you could promulgate a rule? >> thank you for the question, senator. i was told that once the anprm would be approved from omb there would be a 30-day comment period. that i don't want to guess because we could have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of response and we have to look at each one and categorize that. so i would be happy to report back to the committee after that was announced to give a time frame to your question. >> but we are probably talking about months, though. >> yeah. >> it seems reasonable just based on the way apa normally plays out, this is a months long proposition minimally. do you think that's a fair characterization for me to make, not you? >> yes, sir. >> it's an area -- and then you did respond, i think, to the chairman's question that the end result of this c

tillis. >> thank you, mr. chair. gentlemen, thank you both for being here, families welcome. your dad's are doing great. actually, i want to start with mr. stras, and the preparatory materials for the hearing some of your position seemed to remind me of someone else who was before us a while back, near gorsuch. he has a fairly good reputation, so that's meant as a plicomplim. >> thank you. >> a couple of things i wanted to cover. one in minnesota versus obita, it sounds to me you should try the case based on the facts presented in the court, in the trial court rather than you actually decide a case based on additional facts or additional argument ls. is that a fair char rayization for a nonattorney? >> it is. it's a little bit more complicated than that. that case was an unusual case because it involved a pretrial appeal by the prosecution which was not allowed at common law in minnesota. now we have a rule that will allows a pretrial appeal. and my dissent which was joined by justice allen page said, look, they wanted to -- the vic te victim wanted to admit, we said we didn'