John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Sarah Miller for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Sarah is a native of Pennsylvania. She recently graduated from American University, where she received a degree in international studies. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Sarah for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jacob Henry for his hard work as an intern in my Casper office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jacob is a native of Casper, WY, and is a second-year student at Casper College. He served in the Marine Corps and has received two Purple Hearts. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Jacob for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Timothy Corley for his hard work as an intern at the Republican Policy Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Timothy is a native of Maryland and a graduate of American University, School of International Service. He studied U.S. foreign policy. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Timothy for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Bailey Bowen for her hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Bailey is a native of Kemmerer, WY. She currently attends Utah Valley University, where she is studying behavioral science. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Bailey for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past few months, Congress has passed 14 different resolutions that are going to save the American people money and are going to make it a lot easier for our economy to grow. There have been 14 times since February that we have struck down unnecessary, burdensome, and costly regulations. These were called ``midnight regulations'' because they came at the end of the Obama administration. Some came out, actually, after the Presidential election had been completed. The outcome was known, and, still, the outgoing administration tried to continue with what President Obama's Chief of Staff at one time called ``audacious executive actions.'' Half of these 14 regulations--half of them--were actually put in place after the November Presidential election. When one thinks about the election last year in November, President Obama said time and again during the campaign that his agenda was on the ballot. The American people rejected that agenda, and the President dumped these new rules on the American people as a parting shot. We wiped out 14 of these regulations--wiped them off the books. In one resolution, we rolled back an important part of President Obama's war on coal. That was the so-called stream buffer rule. It was designed to shut down a lot of the surface coal mining in this country. It would have destroyed up to one-third of coal mining jobs in America. So we passed a resolution that will protect coal mining jobs and protect American energy independence. There was another resolution we passed that restores the role of local land managers in deciding how best to use Federal land. Before the Obama administration, the local experts were the ones who would help decide how Federal land could be used in so many areas around the country. These are the people on the ground. They are the ones who know best what works there. They are the ones with the best sense of how to balance all of the different ways that land can be used. That could be things like recreation, energy production, and grazing. Well, the Obama administration said it wasn't interested in hearing from the local experts anymore. It decided to put the decisions--all of those decisions--in the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, DC. So Congress passed a resolution that says these are decisions that affect local communities and those communities should have the say--and a significant amount of say--in how decisions get made. When we look at these 14 resolutions all together, they will save Americans over $4 billion and more than 4 million hours of paperwork because not only are the regulations expensive, they are burdensome and time-consuming. I can tell my colleagues this is just the beginning. These resolutions are just one tool that we have to strike down bad regulations. There is much more that Congress can do and will do, and there is much more that the Trump administration can do. The administration has already made it clear that the bureaucrats in Washington are not in charge anymore. I plan to make sure the Trump administration keeps up the pace and tosses some of the worst regulations and rules into the garbage where they belong. A good place to start would be for Ryan Zinke, the Secretary of the Interior, to throw out another rule that makes it more difficult to produce American energy. This regulation supposedly tries to reduce how much methane gets lost in oil and gas production. There is always some unprocessed natural gas that gets released at gas and oil wells. Energy producers try to gather up this gas and then ship it to a processing plant where, of course, it can be sold. It can be used by customers, and taxes are paid on it that go to State and local governments, as well as money that is raised by the sales for the companies themselves. To do that, the producers need small pipelines. They need these small pipelines to collect the unprocessed gas from the wells and to get it to the processing plant. Here is the problem: We don't have enough of these gathering lines. Without the gathering lines, the only option is for that gas to get burned, and that extra natural gas will escape into the air. So what do the bureaucrats in Washington say? They could have addressed the real reason this gas is being lost; that is, the fact that they haven't allowed enough of these gathering lines on Federal land. Instead, they decided to write a regulation that makes it tougher for us to produce American energy here in America. The Obama administration blocked the permits to build the gathering lines. So this methane rule is a terrible regulation. It is redundant. It is unnecessary. I believe it is illegal, and it needs to go. Secretary Zinke should wipe the slate clean and get rid of this outrageous rule immediately. He should also order the bureaucrats who work for him to start approving more of these gas-gathering lines. That is what we really need. We need to make energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it in ways that do not raise costs for American families. We need to balance thoughtful regulation with a growing economy. We can have both. The Obama administration absolutely failed to strike the right balance. The Trump administration and Congress have a lot more we can do to make sure we get the balance right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the weekend, President Trump celebrated 100 days that he has been in office as President of the United States. Newspapers and magazines and pundits on television were all talking about what the President has accomplished in those first 100 days. From what I heard talking to people at home in Wyoming this past weekend, his first 100 days has been a huge success. People tell me that they think America is finally headed in the right direction again. I had a lot of people tell me they feel as if they have actually gotten a new spring in their step as a result of the Presidential election last year and President Trump taking office. The other day when I was home, I was in line at the gas station behind a guy. A friend of his came and said: Hey, how are you doing? The guy said: Great. We are hiring again. That is the kind of confidence that is happening all around Wyoming. The polling company Gallup says that it is happening not just in Wyoming but all across the country. For 24 straight weeks, more Americans have been more optimistic than pessimistic about the economy. As soon as Donald Trump was elected President, economic confidence soared, and it has stayed positive ever since. Gallup said that this is the exact opposite of what they had seen in the previous 8 years; that is, during the whole Obama administration, during the entire so-called economic recovery. In another poll released last week, Gallup said that people are also less worried that they will lose the job they have. They found that American workers are less concerned about being laid off from their job than at any time since Gallup started asking questions way back in 1975. That is more than 40 years ago. Why are people optimistic now? I think it is because they see that President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are serious about improving the economy. They see that we are serious about giving relief to Americans who have been getting buried under an avalanche of redtape. They see that the President is off to a very fast start in the White House. Just look at what we have already done to help relieve the burdens on Americans. Congress has rolled back 13 different midnight regulations that President Obama tried to sneak through at the last minute. We struck down a stream buffer rule that was meant to block coal mining. We got rid of a rule that puts Americans at a competitive disadvantage when they are trying to develop energy resources overseas. We got rid of a regulation that took the control of local energy issues away from the State officials; we got rid of that regulation. And we got rid of one of the regulations that gave more control to Washington and less to States. These were regulations that harmed Americans and wiped out American jobs. Now those regulations are gone. We have more that we can do to roll back terrible regulations like these. I have introduced a resolution to block another damaging rule that has come out by the Bureau of Land Management, which has to do with the Obama administration rules on methane that is produced at oil and gas wells. The new regulations created confusion by duplicating other rules that were already on the books. That was the problem with so many of these regulations coming out by the Obama administration as they left office: regulation on top of regulation causing costs and confusion. They added costs that discourage energy production and kill energy jobs. I hope that we can have a vote on this resolution very soon and get rid of this unnecessary red tape. As active as Congress has been getting rid of these unfair, last- minute rules, President Trump has been even more active. He has already signed at least 30 Executive orders to help clear a path for the American economy to take off again. He signed a major Executive order promoting American energy independence. This has been an enormous shift away from the Obama-era approach of disruptive regulations, restrictions, and Washington overreach. All of these regulations did more to harm hard-working Americans than they did to actually help the environment. From now on, Washington will be looking for ways to protect our environment while helping our economy to grow. Just last week, President Trump took another important step to keep his promises. He eased restrictions on drilling for oil and gas in offshore areas, like the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. These places have great potential for producing the energy America needs. President Trump is helping to create certainty that those resources will be available if we need them. President Obama couldn't imagine that it was possible to have responsible energy development in America. President Trump knows differently. He knows it is possible. He knows that American workers can do the job. He knows that America will be stronger because of it. I think that is the kind of thing the American people mean when they tell me that they feel they have a spring in their step. I can also tell you that this is just the beginning. Remember when President Obama bragged that he had a pen and a phone? Well, President Trump has proved that he has a whole drawer full of pens, and he intends to keep using them to help get the American economy growing again. He wants to hear more people saying that things are great; we are hiring again. That is what the President has been doing, and it is what Congress is doing. These are the kinds of things that will get this country back on track when it comes to our energy policy. In Wyoming and in much of the country, energy means jobs. Our goal should be to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can without raising costs on American families. All of us should be able to agree on that. It is time to restore that balance to America's energy policy. President Trump is dedicated to getting that balance right. Republicans in Congress are dedicated to getting the economy back in gear, and I hope that more Democrats will join us with their ideas and with their support. That is what the American people want, and it is what they voted for. It is why people are confident and why they see better days ahead for this great country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, people around the country know the world continues to be a very dangerous place. It became more dangerous over the past 8 years. I believe that is particularly related to what I saw as unwise and unsound policies by the Obama administration, certainly when it comes to foreign policy. Every President's foreign policy should secure America's national interests and demonstrate America's leadership around the world. That was not the case under President Obama. The last President and his team followed a policy, what has been called strategic patience--strategic patience--when dealing with hostile countries all around the world: Iran, North Korea. Any time there was a belligerent, aggressive, cunning dictator on the move, President Obama's position was strategic patience. It was a terrible approach--a terrible approach for us in dealing with reckless regimes. I always thought President Obama was completely focused on signing a nuclear deal with Iran, not because it actually was a great deal but maybe because it might reflect well on his legacy. I thought he wanted a deal so badly that he ended up getting a deal that was a bad deal. Well, as part of the deal, the former President accepted Iranian demands--and he accepted all of them--to lift an arms embargo that the United Nations had put into place. This was an embargo that said that Iran was not supposed to be selling weapons to other countries. The embargo was going to disappear in 5 years, whether Iran complied with it or not. We already know Iran has no intention of playing by the rules. They haven't played by the rules all the way through. Last week, the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, said Iran has already been violating the embargo. That is why I believe they have no intention of playing by the rules. The Secretary of Defense tells us they are not playing by the rules now. He said we have seen Iranian-supplied missiles--our Secretary of Defense said: We have seen Iranian-supplied missiles being fired into Saudi Arabia by the rebels in Yemen. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was even more clear. He said last week that Iran is ``the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.'' He said that Iran is ``responsible for intensifying multiple conflicts''--``intensifying the conflicts and undermining U.S. interests in countries such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon.'' Now, this is a direct result of President Obama spending 8 years being strategically patient. It is the result of sending the signal that Iran would be rewarded for its bad behavior. So let's look at what happened last year when the Obama administration was bragging about the nuclear deal--and they were high- fiving, bragging about the deal. Just when the deal went into effect, President Obama arranged to send to Iran $1.7 billion in cash--$1.7 billion is an astonishingly large amount of money. It is a million and a million and a million--it is 1,700 piles of $1 million. Remember--try to visualize this. You may remember the news reports about pallets of cash stacked up going to Iran. President Obama sent $400 million as a downpayment. Within 24 hours, the Iranians agreed to release a group of Americans whom they had been holding hostage. The Obama White House said it was not a ransom payment to free the hostages. The Obama administration actually thought the American people were naive enough to believe it was just a coincidence in timing. Well, you can bet the Iranians did not believe it was a coincidence because they actually said it was not a coincidence. The Iranians described the money as for the release of the hostages. We know from experience that the Iranians see hostage-taking as a valid way of conducting their own foreign policy. Right now, North Korea also has taken hostages--three American hostages written about today in the papers. We know from experience the Iranians see hostage-taking as a valid way to conduct foreign policy, and they have also gotten the message, at least from the previous administration, that it can be a very profitable policy as well. President Obama played right into their hands. There is something else President Obama did that we just learned about, and that is why I wanted to speak about this today. Politico had a major expose on Monday of this week. The headline was: ``Obama's hidden Iran deal giveaway''-- the ``hidden deal giveaway.'' Around the same time President Obama was sending cash to Iran, he also released seven Iranians who had been arrested by the United States. The President downplayed the crimes these individuals had committed. He said it was a ``one-time gesture'' to help grease the skids for his Iran deal. Now, according to the documents obtained by Politico, the Obama administration also dropped charges and international arrest warrants against 14 other individuals. Some of them were wanted for serious threats to our own American national security. One man was charged with trying to buy thousands of assault weapons--thousands of assault weapons--and send them to Iran. Another was charged with conspiring to get from Iran thousands of pieces of equipment with nuclear applications. The scheme included hundreds of U.S.-made sensors for uranium enrichment centrifuges in Iran. Centrifuges were a big reason we were concerned about Iran's nuclear program in the first place. Yet, according to President Obama, this doesn't seem to be a problem. According to the article that came out Monday, ``As far back as the fall of 2014, Obama administration officials began slow-walking some significant investigations and prosecutions of Iranian procurement networks operating right here within the United States.'' As one expert told Politico, ``This is a scandal.'' She said: ``It's stunning and hard to understand why we would do this.'' Republicans in Congress warned about this kind of thing from the very beginning. President Obama was so interested in getting a deal that he got one that in my opinion, has been very bad for the United States--not just for the United States, bad for the world because Iran with a nuclear weapon makes the world less safe, less secure, and less stable. President Obama has this as part of his legacy, but I will tell you strategic patience has failed. Secretary of State Tillerson said so last week, and I agree with him completely. I am glad to hear our top diplomat recognized this, and I am glad to see the Trump administration doing a comprehensive review of the Iran nuclear agreement. The last President put international opinion first when it came to foreign policy. We see this all around the world. This President, President Trump, is showing that we will put America's interests first. It is not just Iran where we have the problem. I was recently in Asia over the break, along with a group of Senators. We went to Tokyo, we went to Beijing to meet with the leaders in China. We went around that region. We met with the Premier of China, who is the No. 2 person in China, and we met with the No. 3 and the No. 4 to talk specifically about the problems of North Korea and the region. For a long time, North Korea has been called the land of lousy options, but there is new urgency as we see the increasing capacity of North Korea now with their rockets not just propelled with liquid fuel but now with solid fuel that allows for quicker launches. The launch vehicles are no longer on wheels limited to the roads in North Korea, they are now on tracks and they can go anywhere. North Korea has increased their nuclear capacity as well as their missile deliverability, and they are working on intercontinental ballistic missiles that can hit the United States. That is why we were at the White House yesterday for this secure briefing. That is why it is so critical that we focus on North Korea and we have a President who is focused on a peaceful resolution but is not afraid to use force, as we have seen in Syria and in Afghanistan, because if you want to use deterrence, you have to have a capacity--which we have had in the United States, which is incredible--through the Presidents over the years. You have to have a commitment to use that capacity, and we have seen from President Trump a commitment to use that capacity in Syria, in Afghanistan. You have to communicate a willingness to use that capacity, as President Trump is doing today. Last week, Vice President Pence traveled to the demilitarized zone between South Korea and North Korea. He said very clearly that when it comes to North Korea's nuclear weapons program, ``the era of strategic patience is over.'' North Korea has been allowed to get away with too much for too long. It continues to test nuclear weapons. It continues to test missiles. It continues to use hostages as a way of getting what it wants from other countries. Over the weekend, we learned that North Korea arrested an American professor who was in that country. North Korea, like Iran, has a history of taking hostages and using them as leverage to get what it wants. We now know three Americans are being held in North Korea. The leadership of countries like Iran and North Korea need to understand that this kind of action will not succeed. No one wants a fight with Iran. No one wants a fight with North Korea. The way to avoid the fight is to show that there is a limit to the patience of civilized countries of the world, which is why the age of strategic patience is now in the past. There is new leadership with negotiation, deterrence, and, as a final option, the use of force, if necessary, which has not been the case in the last 8 years, where the use of force, the message sent by that administration was: We have no commitment to use the capacity which the United States has. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Monday, April 10, at 1:30 p.m.; Thursday, April 13, at 8:30 a.m.; Monday, April 17, at 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 20, at 7:20 p.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 20, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, April 24; 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; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume executive session as under the previous order.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate, and that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because we are at a decisive and consequential moment in the Senate. We are here to consider the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Will Democrat Senators vote to have a well-qualified, mainstream Justice who stands for the rule of law, or will the extreme leftwing of that party continue to try to call the shots? That is a decision Members are going to have to make. America needs judges who can follow the law, apply the law, have the highest ethical standards, and value the independence of our courts. To me, that is a description of Judge Gorsuch. That is him in a nutshell. We saw it throughout his career, and we saw it again at his confirmation hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Democrats on the committee asked him to answer hypothetical questions. They asked about issues that are probably going to be coming before the Supreme Court of the land. There are ethics rules that say that judges and nominees cannot answer those kinds of questions and, of course, Judge Gorsuch followed the rules. That is exactly what other nominees have done in the past who were nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did so in her confirmation hearing in 1993. She said: ``A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints.'' She said this would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Of course, she was confirmed and sits on the Court today. It has been known as the Ginsburg standard, and every nominee since her nomination hearing has followed that same standard. That is what Justice Gorsuch did. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to criticize Judge Gorsuch for some of his opinions that they didn't like. They talked about a couple of cases where the person who was on the losing side in the case was sympathetic. They suggested that the Court should have ignored the law and sided with ``the little guy'' in the involved cases. Judge Gorsuch pointed out that judges are absolutely not supposed to consider what they think is sympathetic. They are supposed to rule on the law. Federal judges actually swear an oath ``to administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Most Senators recognize that judges should be impartial. The minority leader, Senator Schumer, has actually spoken about how important this is. At the confirmation hearing for Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, nominated by President Obama, Senator Schumer praised the way she put the ``rule of law above everything else.'' He said that she followed the texts of statutes, ``even when doing so results in rulings that go against so-called sympathetic litigants.'' That was in 2009. Now it is 2017, and that is the identical standard Judge Gorsuch has continued to follow. Judge Gorsuch pointed out that it is his job to apply the law, not to write the law. Writing laws is the job of Congress. We are not here to select the 101st Senator; we are here to select a Justice for the Supreme Court. We are selecting a Justice for the most important Court in the land, and it is important and imperative that we take this decision seriously and that we set aside any partisan grudges. Democrats who want to filibuster this judge are not arguing any principle here. Reasonable individuals know this nominee deserves to be confirmed. One lawyer wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on March 8, a board member of the very liberal American Constitution Society. He wrote that ``there is no principled reason'' to vote against Judge Gorsuch. Well, he is exactly right. I listened to the arguments Democrats made in the confirmation hearing. I was not convinced. If any of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are undecided about how to vote, I suggest they go back and look and listen to the hearings as well and look at what other people have said about this nominee. A Chicago Tribune editorial said that confirmation hearing revealed ``unassailable assurances by Gorsuch that he would decide each case on the merits, based on the law as written, applied to the world as it is today.'' The Detroit news agreed. It said that Judge Gorsuch showed that he is a ``deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the Senate.'' On Monday, USA TODAY had their own headline. It said, ``On the Merits, Gorsuch Merits Confirmation.'' The American Bar Association surveyed 5,000 people who have worked with Judge Gorsuch over the years. These people described him using words like ``brilliant,'' ``thoughtful,'' and ``really, really, really smart.'' The Bar Association also found that ``Judge Gorsuch believes strongly in the independence'' of the judiciary. This is the Bar Association. The American Bar Association predicted that ``he will be a strong but respectful voice in protecting it.'' The group ended up giving him its highest possible rating. Interestingly, Senator Schumer once called this group ``the gold standard'' for evaluating judges--``the gold standard,'' he called it--and they have given him their highest possible rating. So why does the minority leader think the gold standard is not good enough anymore? Judge Gorsuch was even introduced at his confirmation hearing by a former top lawyer for the Obama administration. Neal Katyal is a Democrat. He served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Obama. He called Gorsuch ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.'' Let me repeat. This is someone who served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Obama calling Judge Gorsuch ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.'' He even wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that predicted that Judge Gorsuch would ``help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' Help to restore confidence. Isn't that what we want as a nation--confidence in the rule of law? I think that any Democrat who has looked at this nominee's record will find it is an easy decision to confirm him. If there is a Democrat who reaches the opposite conclusion, I say come to the floor of the Senate and explain why you think our judges should go into a case favoring one side over another because one side is more sympathetic than the other. If there is a Member who thinks that a judge should make promises about how they will rule just to win a confirmation vote of a given Senator, I say come to the floor and make your case. If there is a Member who thinks a Justice on the Supreme Court should rule based on that Justice's own preferences and not based on the law, I would say please come to the floor of the Senate and say so. I don't think that is what the American people want. The American people do want Justices who are smart. They want Justices who are principled, who are fair, and who know that their job is to follow the law, not to write the law and not to legislate from the bench. The American people know that Neil Gorsuch is exactly that kind of judge. He is the kind of judge we should have on the Supreme Court, we need on the Supreme Court, and we need on every court in the land. That is why I am committed to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bipartisan legislation that I have introduced to promote innovative solutions to better manage invasive species, conserve wildlife, and eliminate poaching. I have introduced this in a bipartisan way as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with Senator Tom Carper, who is the ranking member of that committee, and along with Senator Jim Inhofe, who is a former chairman of that committee. This legislation is called the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act, WILD for short. I am a supporter of both conserving wildlife and technological innovation that we have before us. My home State of Wyoming is truly one of the most beautiful places in the world. The people of Wyoming have an incredible appreciation for our wildlife. We applaud the efforts of innovators to help us conserve and manage species much more effectively and at a lower cost. Our State wildlife managers grapple with many challenges that innovators can help us solve. For example, poaching has been a major issue in Wyoming. Hundreds of animals are taken illegally in the State. That is what I hear from the Wyoming Game & Fish Department. Poaching is a problem across the country. It is not just the case in Wyoming; it has become pandemic overseas. International poachers seeking to cash in on the ivory trade have reduced the population of African elephants by 75 percent over the last 10 years. It is tragic. Invasive species also present a threat to native wildlife, to water resources, and to our landscape. Invasive species clog pipes and fuel catastrophic fires. In fact, invasive species have a role in 42 percent of the listings under the Endangered Species Act. It is invasive species that are causing other species to become endangered. We need creative solutions to these threats to our wildlife. Our Nation's innovators are developing cutting-edge technologies to help us more effectively fight poaching, manage wildlife, and control invasive species. A 2015 National Geographic article outlined a number of innovative technologies that are being used today to promote conservation of many of the world's most endangered species. That includes DNA analysis to identify the origin of illicit ivory supplies, using thermal imaging around protected areas to notify authorities of poachers, and using apps to assist wildlife enforcement in carrying out their duties. In December, the National Invasive Species Council cohosted a summit, which highlighted innovations that combat invasive species. A few examples are a fish passage that automatically extracts invasive fish from streams, DNA technologies to provide early detection of invasive species, and the use of drones to gain spatially accurate, high resolution images that could be used to detect and monitor specific invasive species. Innovations like these are why we have introduced in a bipartisan way the WILD Act. This act provides technological and financial assistance to private landowners to improve fish and wildlife habitats. The legislation does this by reauthorizing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The WILD Act requires Federal agencies to implement strategic programs to control invasive species. It also reauthorizes important laws to protect endangered and valuable species around the world, such as the African elephant, the Asian elephant, the rhinoceros, the great ape, and the marine turtle. Finally, this act creates incentives for new conservation innovation. The legislation establishes four separate cash prizes for technological innovation in the prevention of wildlife poaching and trafficking, in the promotion of wildlife conservation, in the management of invasive species, and in the protection of endangered species. The Department of the Interior will administer the prizes, and a panel of relevant experts will award each prize. Innovation is one of the best tools in conserving endangered species and keeping invasive species under control. The WILD Act will help stimulate that innovation. I thank Senator Carper and Senator Inhofe for cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. Thank you.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bipartisan legislation that I have introduced to promote innovative solutions to better manage invasive species, conserve wildlife, and eliminate poaching. I have introduced this in a bipartisan way as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with Senator Tom Carper, who is the ranking member of that committee, and along with Senator Jim Inhofe, who is a former chairman of that committee. This legislation is called the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act, WILD for short. I am a supporter of both conserving wildlife and technological innovation that we have before us. My home State of Wyoming is truly one of the most beautiful places in the world. The people of Wyoming have an incredible appreciation for our wildlife. We applaud the efforts of innovators to help us conserve and manage species much more effectively and at a lower cost. Our State wildlife managers grapple with many challenges that innovators can help us solve. For example, poaching has been a major issue in Wyoming. Hundreds of animals are taken illegally in the State. That is what I hear from the Wyoming Game & Fish Department. Poaching is a problem across the country. It is not just the case in Wyoming; it has become pandemic overseas. International poachers seeking to cash in on the ivory trade have reduced the population of African elephants by 75 percent over the last 10 years. It is tragic. Invasive species also present a threat to native wildlife, to water resources, and to our landscape. Invasive species clog pipes and fuel catastrophic fires. In fact, invasive species have a role in 42 percent of the listings under the Endangered Species Act. It is invasive species that are causing other species to become endangered. We need creative solutions to these threats to our wildlife. Our Nation's innovators are developing cutting-edge technologies to help us more effectively fight poaching, manage wildlife, and control invasive species. A 2015 National Geographic article outlined a number of innovative technologies that are being used today to promote conservation of many of the world's most endangered species. That includes DNA analysis to identify the origin of illicit ivory supplies, using thermal imaging around protected areas to notify authorities of poachers, and using apps to assist wildlife enforcement in carrying out their duties. In December, the National Invasive Species Council cohosted a summit, which highlighted innovations that combat invasive species. A few examples are a fish passage that automatically extracts invasive fish from streams, DNA technologies to provide early detection of invasive species, and the use of drones to gain spatially accurate, high resolution images that could be used to detect and monitor specific invasive species. Innovations like these are why we have introduced in a bipartisan way the WILD Act. This act provides technological and financial assistance to private landowners to improve fish and wildlife habitats. The legislation does this by reauthorizing the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The WILD Act requires Federal agencies to implement strategic programs to control invasive species. It also reauthorizes important laws to protect endangered and valuable species around the world, such as the African elephant, the Asian elephant, the rhinoceros, the great ape, and the marine turtle. Finally, this act creates incentives for new conservation innovation. The legislation establishes four separate cash prizes for technological innovation in the prevention of wildlife poaching and trafficking, in the promotion of wildlife conservation, in the management of invasive species, and in the protection of endangered species. The Department of the Interior will administer the prizes, and a panel of relevant experts will award each prize. Innovation is one of the best tools in conserving endangered species and keeping invasive species under control. The WILD Act will help stimulate that innovation. I thank Senator Carper and Senator Inhofe for cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. Thank you.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to add my voice to that of the Senator from Missouri. I thank him for his leadership and for his excellent work on the matters that he has been addressing. Nomination of Neil Gorsuch Mr. President, I am here to address the issue, as I have done before and will again, of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. America needs judges who can follow the law, who have the highest ethical standards, and who value the independence of our courts. That is the description of Neil Gorsuch. That is him in a nutshell. We saw it throughout his career, and we saw it again in his confirmation hearing last week. Democrats on the committee asked him to talk about issues that are going to be coming up before the Supreme Court. Well, Judge Gorsuch--we know what he did. He followed the rules, the ethics rules. These are the rules that say that judges and nominees should not answer those kinds of questions. Following the rules is exactly what he should have done, and it is exactly what other nominees that both Republican and Democratic Presidents have placed on the Court have done in the past. It is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did at her confirmation hearing in 1993. She said that a ``judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints.'' She said that this would ``display disdain for the entire judicial process.'' She was confirmed. That is exactly what Judge Gorsuch said. That is the Ginsburg standard, and every nominee since then has followed that standard. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also tried last week to criticize Judge Gorsuch for some of his opinions that they didn't like. They suggested that the Court should have ignored the law--ignored the law and sided with ``the little guy'' in these cases. Judge Gorsuch was quick to point out that all judges are absolutely not supposed to consider who they think is sympathetic. They are to rule based on the law. Federal judges actually swear an oath to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' It is interesting because the minority leader, Senator Schumer, himself has spoken about how important it is for a judge to be impartial. In 2009, at the confirmation hearing for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he praised the way that she put the ``rule of law above everything else.'' He said that she did this even when it led to rulings that ``go against so-called sympathetic litigants.'' That was 2009. Fast forward to 2017. It is the identical standard that Judge Gorsuch has followed. He pointed out that it is his job to apply the law, and writing the laws is the job of the legislative branch of government. We are not here selecting the 101st Senator. This is not about who ought to be another Senator. This is about who should be on the Supreme Court. We are selecting a Justice for the most important Court of the land. Nearly everyone who has looked at this nominee's record, who has watched his confirmation hearing agrees that he would be an excellent Justice. There was one lawyer who wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post on March 8. He is a board member of the liberal American Constitution Society. He wrote that ``there is no principled reason'' to vote against Judge Gorsuch. A Denver Post editorial last week said Judge Gorsuch would make ``a marvelous addition to the Supreme Court.'' The American Bar Association has given him its highest possible rating. He was even introduced at his confirmation hearing last week by a former top lawyer for the Obama administration. Neal Katyal is a Democrat. He was the Acting Solicitor General of the United States for President Obama. He has called Judge Gorsuch ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.'' I think any Democrat who watched the confirmation hearings and looked at the nominee's record will decide it is an easy decision to confirm him. If there is a Democrat who reaches the opposite conclusion, I say: Come to this floor. Come to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Explain why you think our judges should go into a case favoring one side or another. If you think a judge should make promises about how he will rule just to win the vote of a Senator, go ahead. Come to the floor. Make your case. If you think that a Justice of the Supreme Court should ignore the law and rule not based on the law but by that judge's own preferences, please come to the floor and say so. I don't think that is what the American people want. The American people want judges who are smart, who are principled, who are fair, and who know that their job is to follow the law, not write the law. The American people know that Neil Gorsuch is exactly that kind of judge, and that is the kind of judge who we should have on the Supreme Court and on every court of the land. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.