Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 118, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his remarks on Judge Gorsuch. I look forward to this debate this week as we work to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court in a bipartisan fashion. This evening, though, I come to the floor to talk about another very important issue that is happening in this country this week; that is, the U.S.-China relationship that will be highlighted this week as President Trump prepares to meet with President Xi for the first time later this week. This summer presents a tremendous opportunity for President Trump to expressly state our hope for the relationship, while also elucidating the valid concerns and questions we have about some of China's policies and its future directions. I am also leading a bipartisan letter with Senator Schatz, and I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing our thoughts about this important relationship. The U.S.-China relationship is the most consequential relationship in the world. We must get it right. Beijing must also get it right. So today I will address what I hope President Trump will focus on in his conversation with President Xi and also outline a legislative initiative that I am leading in Congress to strengthen our policies in the Asia-Pacific region. I believe the most urgent challenge between our two nations is the coming nuclear crisis on the North Korean Peninsula. Last year alone, North Korea conducted two nuclear tests and a staggering 24 ballistic missile launches. Kim Jong Un is committed to developing his nuclear missile program with one goal in mind--to have a reliable capability to deliver a nuclear warhead to Seoul, Tokyo, and, most importantly, to the continental United States. President Trump has said that the United States will not allow that to happen. I am encouraged by the President's resolve. However, the road to stopping Pyongyang undoubtedly lies through Beijing. Beijing is the reason the regime acts so boldly and with relative few consequences. China is the only country that holds the diplomatic and economic leverage necessary to put the real squeeze on the North Korean regime. So while the United States argues over strategic patience or measured resolve, China must go beyond mere articulation of concern and lay out a transparent path forward on how they will work to denuclearize North Korea. For our part, President Trump must lay out a simple calculus for President Xi: The United States will deploy every economic, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military tool at our disposal to deter Pyongyang and to protect our allies. China has a responsibility globally to do the same. As part of our toolbox, the administration should tell China it will now significantly ramp up the sanctions track. Last Congress, I led the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. This legislation was the first stand-alone legislation in Congress regarding North Korea to impose mandatory sanctions on the regime's proliferation activities, human rights violations, and malicious cyber behavior. The administration must fully enforce this legislation, including imposing secondary sanctions on any Chinese entities that are aiding Pyongyang. In addition, China must faithfully implement all United Nations Security Council resolutions with regard to North Korea, particularly resolutions 2270 and 2321, negotiated last year, which require China to drastically reduce coal imports from North Korea. China's record in this has been lackluster so far. China should stop being complicit in the labor abuses of Pyongyang and shut off avenues of cyber attack, as well, that are being perpetrated by North Korea through Chinese channels. Two weeks ago, China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, called on the United States and South Korea to halt their annual joint military exercises in exchange for North Korea's suspending its missile and nuclear activities, a deal that the Trump administration rightfully rejected. We should let Beijing know that the United States will not negotiate with Pyongyang at the expense of the security of our allies. Moreover, before any talks, we must demand that Pyongyang first meet the denuclearization commitments it had already agreed to and subsequently chose to discard. President Trump should unequivocally condemn the economic pressure exerted by Beijing on Seoul over the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, on South Korean territory. THAAD is a defensive system that in no way threatens China, and Beijing knows this. Most importantly, President Trump should indicate to President Xi that a denuclearized Korean Peninsula is in both nation's interests. But to achieve this goal, Beijing must be made to choose whether it wants to work with the United States as a responsible leader to stop the madman in Pyongyang or bear and acknowledge the consequences of keeping him in power. Another looming crisis in U.S.-China relations is the escalation of tension in the East and South China Seas. China's recent destabilizing activities and actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea are contrary to international law, pose an increased risk of future conflict, and necessitate a strong U.S. and regional response. Their actions seem at odds with their words. China has declared an illegitimate air defense identification zone in the East China Sea, has dramatically expanded its land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, and has clearly added a military element to it. Since 2013, according to the Department of Defense, China has reclaimed over 3,200 acres of artificial features in the South China Sea. On July 12, 2016, an international tribunal in the Hague ruled that China violated the sovereignty of the Philippines with regard to maritime disputes between the two nations. Since 2015, China has also built facilities with potential military uses on the artificial islands, including three airstrips--two more than 10,000-feet long, and one nearly 9,000-feet long--hangers that can shelter jet fighters, harbors, anti-aircraft batteries, radars, and structures that could house surface-to-air missiles. This last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative reported that major construction of military dual-use infrastructure on the ``Big 3''--Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross Reefs--is wrapping up, with naval, air, radar, and defensive facilities largely complete. Beijing can now deploy military assets, according to AMTI, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers to the Spratly Islands at any time. The United States must have consistent and assertive diplomatic engagement with China to reinforce that these rogue activities fall outside of accepted international norms. The U.S. defense posture in this region should remain exactly what Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 30, 2015. I quote Secretary Carter: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as U.S. forces do all over the world. America, alongside its allies and partners in the regional architecture, will not be deterred from exercising these rights--the rights of all nations. A consistent, deliberate, and assertive policy to do just that is imperative for the United States. During the upcoming summit, I hope that President Trump can set an agenda for positive economic engagement with China and recognize that this is a two-way street. As the top two economies in the world, our nations are inextricably linked, and we must continue to build a trade partnership that benefits the United States, our companies, and U.S. exporters. However, this engagement also means ensuring that China plays fair. First and foremost, China must stop its state-sponsored and state- endorsed theft of foreign intellectual property. According to a report by the Intellectual Property Commission, chaired by ADM Dennis Blair, the former U.S. Commander of the Pacific Command, and John Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China, the theft of U.S. intellectual property is estimated at over $300 billion annually, and China accounts for about 50 to 80 percent of that amount. China must understand that this behavior with regard to the massive and well documented theft of foreign intellectual property is unacceptable and antithetical to international norms. China also needs significant improvement to its legal system and to further open its economy to foreign and private investment. China must understand that new regulations that seek to discriminate against American companies, anti-market policies that favor state-owned enterprises, lack of transparency, and other policies that create an uneven playing field for the United States and our enterprises in China are not acceptable, and that those protectionist behaviors will only further isolate China or hurt their global competitiveness, if they are adopted globally, as they seek to engage further in the world's economy. While many American firms still look to China as a top priority to grow and succeed in the global marketplace, without tangible economic and legal reforms within China, I fear that these opportunities will be more limited in the future and seriously jeopardize the bilateral commercial relations between our two nations. But if Beijing changes course, the upside of these reforms for China and the United States can be enormous. A pillar of any nation that seeks a prosperous future and a future with a strong relationship with the United States must be international freedoms. As President Kennedy once stated: ``The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.'' President Trump should heed President Kennedy's wise words and raise China's deplorable human rights record with President Xi. Chinese authorities are intensifying human rights abuses and cracking down on civil society. According to the State Department's 2015 Human Rights Report on China: ``Repression and coercion markedly increased during the year against organizations and individuals involved in civil and political rights advocacy and public interest and ethnic minority issues.'' According to the State Department's 2015 International Religious Freedom Report on China: ``Over this past year, there continued to be reports that the government physically abused, detained, arrested, tortured, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their beliefs and practices.'' We simply cannot and will not accept this type of behavior from a nation that wants to be thought of as a genuine global partner of the United States. I believe that China's rise can only be peaceful and balanced with a vigorous U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region that is able to check Beijing's worst impulses. Last May, while attending the Shangri-La Dialogue, I heard a tremendous amount of concern from the region's top leaders about U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region and our commitment to remaining engaged in this critical part of the world. The Trump administration is inheriting a flawed Asia rebalance policy from the previous administration, which was right in rhetoric but ultimately came up short in meaningful action. The new administration and the new Congress ushers in a new era of opportunities with regard to U.S. policy toward the Asia Pacific. But despite the political changes in Washington, U.S. policy imperatives will remain the same. The Asia-Pacific region has been and will be crucial and critical to U.S. economic and national security interests for generations to come. By 2050, experts estimate that Asia will account for over half of the global population and half of the world's gross domestic product. We cannot ignore the fundamental fact that this region is critical for the U.S. economy to grow and to create jobs through export opportunities. Last week, I held a committee hearing with Ambassador Bob Gallucci, former Ambassador to South Korea, and Congressman Randy Forbes, from Virginia, who was the chairman of some key committees as they dealt with Asia and our naval forces. In Congressman Forbes' testimony, he also expressed the importance of this region, the Asia Pacific, in these terms: In the coming decades, this is the region where the largest armies in the world will camp. This is the region where the most powerful navies in the world will gather. This is the region where over one-half of the world's commerce will take place and two-thirds will travel. This is the region where a maritime superhighway--transporting good or bad things--linking the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Australia, Northeast Asia, and the United States begins. This is the region where five of America's seven defense treaties are located. This is the region where two superpowers will compete to determine which world order will prevail. This is the region where the seeds of conflict that could most engulf the world will probably be planted. This is why I am pursuing legislation called the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, ARIA, a new approach that will put American interests first by reassuring our allies, deterring our adversaries, and securing U.S. leadership in the region for future generations. The ARIA will pursue three broad goals. First, it will strengthen U.S. security commitments to our allies and build partner capacity in the Asia Pacific to deter aggression, project power, and combat terrorism. To do so, the ARIA legislation will authorize funds to bolster U.S. military presence in the region, grow partner nation maritime capabilities to deter aggression in their territorial waters, and build new counterterrorism partner programs in Southeast Asia to combat the growing presence of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. ARIA will also enshrine a policy of regularly enforcing U.S. freedom of navigation and overflight rights in the East and South China Seas. We will reaffirm our longstanding treaty alliances with Australia, South Korea, and Japan, and call for building new regional security partnerships. We will unequivocally back our ally Taiwan, including authorizing new arms sales and providing for enhanced diplomatic contacts with Taipei. Second, ARIA will promote diplomatic engagement and securing U.S. market access in the Asia Pacific region as essential elements for the future growth of the U.S. economy and success of American businesses. To do so, ARIA will also require that the Trump administration find new and innovative ways to economically engage the region. We will require the U.S. Government to enhance our trade facilitation efforts and increase opportunities for U.S. businesses to find new export markets in the Asia Pacific. U.S.-made exports to Asia will mean more good- paying American jobs at home, which is a great situation for this country. Third, it will enshrine promotion of democracy, human rights, and transparency as key U.S. policy objectives in the Asia Pacific region, particularly in Southeast Asia. From Manila to Rangoon, we should advocate for principled policies that emphasize accountability and transparency as indispensable elements of building any security or economic partnerships with the United States. To inform this initiative, I have met with numerous key stakeholders in Congress and the administration. I am also holding a series of hearings in my subcommittee, the first of which took place last week. I look forward to working with the Congress and all of our colleagues as we work to advance this initiative. I welcome the input of my colleagues as well. There is no doubt that the rise of China over the last 30-plus years has been remarkable. China has lifted 500 million people from poverty since Premier Deng Xiaoping began his economic reforms in 1979, and it is now the second largest economy in the world. In that time, our relationship with China has emerged as perhaps the world's most important bilateral relationship, both from an economic and security perspective. I believe that a mature, productive, and peaceful relationship with Beijing is in the national security and economic interests of the United States. For both nations, the importance of this relationship can make a significant difference for the world. While the United States can and should seek to engage China, we must do so with a clear vision of what we want from Beijing, not just over the next 4 years but also over the next 40 years. So it is my sincere hope that President Trump leads with this sense of strategy and purpose when he meets President Xi later this week. I know my colleague from Ohio has joined us, so I again want to express my appreciation to my colleague from Ohio for his leadership on a number of issues, including the opiate epidemic that has struck so many of our communities and States. It is so terrifying. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again today to talk about the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 235 years of our Nation's history with the Constitution, there has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice. What I mean by that is this: No Supreme Court nominee has ever been rejected by a partisan filibuster on the floor of the Senate. Now, sure, we can argue about the 1968 bipartisan attempt to make sure that then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas wasn't elevated to the Chief Justice position. What this Chamber is facing today isn't a question of whether we will abide by the Biden rule. The Biden rule, of course, was when Joe Biden said: During the last term of the outgoing President, when the office is up for election, we are not going to confirm any nominees. This isn't an argument over whether Chuck Schumer was right when Senator Chuck Schumer said: Heck, over the last couple of years of the Bush administration, we are not going to allow a Justice to be confirmed. That is not what we are arguing about today. We are arguing about whether a brilliant legal mind, a judge who has proven incredible legal temperament over the last several months since his nomination, a judge who has agreed 97 percent of the time with the majority decisions of the court, should receive an up-or-down vote. Have no doubt that this is a historic opportunity for this Chamber to come together to prove that we believe in that 230-year precedent of confirming Supreme Court Justices. This is an opportunity we have to come together on a judge who just 11 years ago was confirmed unanimously by voice vote. There was no opposition 11 years ago to Judge Gorsuch when he was confirmed to be placed on the Tenth Circuit Court, which is based in Denver. Now, the Denver-based court, the Tenth Circuit Court, covers about 20 percent of our Nation's land mass. It is a huge, huge area. This is a court that deals with public lands cases. This is a court that deals with water issues, complex public lands issues, and Tribal issues. This is a judge who has been a part of 2,700 opinions, voting 97 percent of the time with the majority of the court. Now, the majority of the court aren't all George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan nominees. The nominees in the Tenth Circuit Court are bipartisan justices. It is filled with Democratic and Republican appointees. That is the Tenth Circuit Court, with whom Judge Gorsuch has worked. Judge Gorsuch has been somebody known as a feeder judge. A feeder judge is somebody that the Supreme Court--when they are looking to select clerks to help the Justices do their work--looks to, like Judge Gorsuch, to provide them with law clerks to help them at the Supreme Court. They do that because he is an incredible and outstanding jurist, somebody who has the respect on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat. That is why he is a feeder judge. That is why he was confirmed 11 years ago by a bipartisan body of Senators. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen days' worth of hearings where each Senator has been able to speak for an hour or so, questioning Judge Gorsuch, days' worth of hearings where the American people witnessed as Judge Gorsuch laid out his legal philosophy and his temperament, and where he displayed the even temperament we need on a Supreme Court--the kind of temperament that not only is able to work with colleagues but understand complex legal cases. And 11 years ago his confirmation was so noncontroversial that when it came to his confirmation, Senator Lindsey Graham was the only one who showed up. He was the only one at the confirmation hearing. That is how noncontroversial it was. What a difference a court makes. Now, let's talk about some of the Senators who supported him, or at least didn't object to him, 11 years ago. Then, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer didn't oppose Judge Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court. Senator Leahy, a member of the Judiciary Committee, did not object to Judge Gorsuch. Senator Feinstein, another member of the Judiciary Committee, didn't oppose Neil Gorsuch. Senator Durbin, the minority whip, did not oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch 11 years ago. Senator Cantwell, Senator Carper, Senator Menendez, Senator Murray--none of them opposed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to the Tenth Circuit Court. Senator Nelson, Senator Reed, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden--all of them here today. None of them objected to Neil Gorsuch. It is even more than that. Then-Senator Barack Obama did not object to Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton didn't object to Judge Gorsuch's nomination. Then-Senator Joe Biden helped pass his confirmation, his appointment, and made sure it cleared on a voice vote. To hear the partisan bickering here is extremely disappointing and disingenuous. So I hope this Chamber will do what we do best in this country, and that is to come together on issues of doing our job of confirming a Supreme Court Justice after spending the past several months complaining that the Supreme Court wasn't filled. This judge should receive bipartisan support, as he did 11 years ago. I guess the question has to be asked of people who are now opposing Judge Gorsuch today, who either supported or did not object to him 11 years ago: Did they not do their work 11 years ago? Did they not realize he was a bad judge? Or has the time of politics changed? Or are we just dealing with a President whom they have decided they don't want to have a Supreme Court Justice from? I guess that is what has perhaps changed the most over the past 11 years, because there is not really a narrative we can point to for a reason of why they should oppose him, other than people just deciding that the politics of the now require it, and that is incredibly disappointing. If we look at Judge Gorsuch's statements, he talks about Justice Scalia's vision of the good and faithful judge. I think it is a worthy one that we focus on because of what it means to Judge Gorsuch--soon to be Justice Gorsuch--to be a good and faithful judge: It seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn't just a formality dictated by the Constitution. Neither is it just about ensuring that two institutions with basically identical functions are balanced one against the other. To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were distinct by nature and their separation was among the most important liberty-protecting devices of constitutional design, an independent right of the people essential to the preservation of all other rights later enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. Now consider . . . if we allowed the judge to act like a legislature. Unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment hurdles of Article I, the judge would need only his own vote, or those of just a few colleagues, to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively simple thing. Notice, too, how hard it would be to revise this so-easily- made judicial legislation to account for changes in the world or to fix mistakes. Unable to throw judges out of office in regular elections, you'd have to wait for them to die before you'd have any chance of change. And even then you'd find change difficult, for courts cannot so easily undo their errors given the weight they afford precedent. Notice finally how little voice the people would be left in a government where life-appointed judges are free to legislate alongside elected representatives. The very idea of self-government would seem to wither to the point of pointlessness. Indeed, it seems that for reasons just like these Hamilton explained that ``liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone,'' but that it ``ha[s] everything to fear from [the] union'' of the judicial and legislative powers. . . . That is the explanation that Judge Gorsuch has given to Justice Scalia's good and faithful judge--a judge who believes that the judicial branch is the guardian of the Constitution to take a decision or a question before them to the place the law leads them to, not to the place where politics sends them or politics demands them or personal opinions and beliefs dictate. We have heard Judge Gorsuch say he believes that a judge who personally believes or agrees with every opinion he reaches is probably a bad judge. It is because Judge Gorsuch knows that once you put on the robe, you don't follow your personal opinion. You follow the law. That is the guarding of the Constitution that the Federalist Papers talked about. So that is the kind of nominee we are dealing with--a nominee who understands the separation of powers and who understands the role of the judiciary, the role of the legislative branch, and the role of the executive. In fact, he believes that the executive branch has been empowered too greatly and that we should once again have separate but equal branches of government balanced in power. I think that is a good judge to place on the Court--a judge who is clearly mainstream, a judge who clearly has the temperament to work with colleagues to make our country proud. Certainly as a fourth-generation Coloradan, I am very excited Judge Gorsuch has been nominated by the President. In addition to the bipartisan support Judge Gorsuch received here 11 years ago, he also has tremendous bipartisan support back home in Colorado. In fact, I have a letter here from Jim Lyons, who was a personal friend and lawyer for President Bill Clinton. It is a letter to Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated February 7, 2017. I write this letter in strong support of the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He ends his letter with this: Judge Gorsuch's intellect, energy and deep regard for the Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked with him and seen first-hand his commitment to basic principles. Above all, his independence, fairness and impartiality are the hallmarks of his career and his well- earned reputation. The former Governor of Colorado, Democrat Bill Ritter, supports the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Eleven years ago, then-Senator Ken Salazar spoke very highly of his temperament, saying in 2006 that Judge Gorsuch met the ``very high test'' required of someone to be a ``great judge'' and that he has ``demonstrated a dedication to fairness, impartiality, precedent and avoidance of judicial activism--from both the left and the right.'' The Denver Post editorial board, which came out in support of Hillary Clinton, argued for Neil Gorsuch's nomination, saying: ``A justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.'' Neal Katyal, former personnel in the Obama administration, stated his support for Neil Gorsuch: ``I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise'' to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' The Washington Post editorial board, many others in Colorado's legal community, including the former cochair of the Host Committee of the Democratic National Convention in 2008, support the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. This is not a partisan judicial appointment; this is a judge who has strong bipartisan support from the people who know him best. I hope we can live up to that high, noble intention of our Constitution, the purpose of the Senate, to make sure we are confirming somebody to do a lifetime service for this country in a way that respects our Constitution and the people of this country. I hope that over the next several days as we debate the nomination, we will move away from this cliff of changing two centuries' worth of precedent in this body and instead come together in a way that befits the best nature of our country. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity to speak and come to the floor. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the continuing challenge that our agricultural communities face across this country. Just a couple of weeks ago, I came to the floor and cited a Wall Street Journal article with the headline: ``The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us.'' Living in eastern Colorado, in a purely 100 percent agricultural community, I understand that when there is a downturn in the ag economy, it does not affect businesses on Main Street later that week or later that month; it affects them that very same day. He is not just somebody who is going in to buy a bag of seed or somebody who is going to the local implement dealer to buy a tractor. He is somebody who decides he is not going to be able to buy that pair of blue jeans that he thought he would or that piece of equipment he needed to help fix the fence. It means that the entire economy in towns like Yuma, CO, Burlington, CO, and Dove Creek, CO, are going to suffer enormously. That is why it is important that we continue the conversation in the U.S. Senate about what is happening in agriculture across this country. I recognize that many people, when they think of Colorado, probably do not think of farms and ranches on the flatlands and prairies. They probably think more of Kansas for that than they do Colorado. If you look at Colorado, it is more than just snowcapped peaks; it is incredible agricultural diversity as well. According to the 2016 National Agricultural Statistics Survey, Colorado ranks in the top 10 in production for the following agriculture commodities: barley, beans, sweet corn, alfalfa, potatoes, millet, sorghum, sunflowers, wheat, cabbage, cantaloupe, onions, cattle, lamb, and wool. Colorado is one of the top 10 producers in those commodities. It is a remarkable list that shows the diversity of Colorado from the plains to the mountains and the incredible production levels that we have achieved. One of the goals I have had in the Senate, of course, is to help make sure that we have the right policies to support our farmers and ranchers throughout Colorado who are producing everything from barley to potatoes. I want to make sure that we work to add even more crops to this list of the top 10 in order to strengthen the agricultural industry in Colorado. As I mentioned a few weeks ago when I came to the floor to talk about that crisis, the Wall Street Journal article highlighted a story from a farmer in Kansas. I recently talked to a farmer in eastern Colorado who is getting paid $3.21 for a bushel of corn, but to pay the bills, his break-even point on that bushel of corn--the amount of money that it took to make that corn bushel--was $3.92 cents. So he was getting paid $3.21, and it cost him $3.92. That is not the right side of an equation to be on if you are in business and, particularly, if you are hoping to pass that business on to future generations. I think it is important that the Senate talk about commodity prices and that we talk about the impact that increased Federal regulations have had which make it more difficult for that farmer to survive, that have driven up the cost of doing business, that have driven up the cost that you need to be paid per bushel of corn so that you can help make ends meet. I talk about barriers to exports and limited financing options. Those are four things that we have to lay out--commodity prices--and deal with. We have to make sure that we are decreasing the number of Federal regulations. We have to make sure that we remove barriers to export and allow agriculture to export. We have to make sure that we are removing any obstacles to the financing that a farmer or a rancher may have, particularly if the economy continues to deteriorate in our countryside, and we have to make sure that we have certainty in ag policy and certainty in regulations. The farm bill conversations continue. Let's make sure that we provide the certainty to our ag communities that they deserve and, quite frankly, demand. According to the 2017 Colorado Business Economic Outlook--and this is an incredible statistic--net farm and ranch incomes are projected to be down almost 80 percent since the records that were set in 2011. By 80 percent, net farm and ranch incomes are projected to be down. An 80 percent drop in just a few years is devastating for rural communities. I believe the exact numbers in Colorado are something like going from $1.8 billion in farm income to a little over $300 million in farm income just over a matter of a few years. While we have done a good job of addressing regulatory concerns, we have to make sure that we are doing a good job of addressing continued trade opportunities in this country as well. Corn and wheat prices are hitting 10-year lows. The price is so low that it costs farmers more to produce the crop, as I mentioned, than it is worth on the market. You do not have to be an economist to figure out that that is not going to let you stay in business for much longer. Simply put, we have a lot of people who are worried in Colorado and across this country for agriculture and our rural communities, which are dependent on their farms and ranches. The Presiding Officer is from the great State of Iowa--a leader in this country when it comes to agriculture. Whether you live in the Eastern Plains of Colorado or in the great State of Iowa, the fact is we have to provide that leadership on a global stage to make sure that our ag communities survive and thrive. Earlier this year, I sent a letter to the Colorado Farm Bureau that solicited feedback on what Congress and the Federal Government could do to support Colorado agriculture. In their response, I received a number of recommendations from the Colorado Farm Bureau and a number of organizations that they reached out to to respond to my request and my question. On the list, of course, was regulatory reform--one of the four pillars that we have to address in order to have successful agriculture in this country. Their concern is that overregulation creates uncertainty in regulations like the waters of the United States and the BLM 2.0 rules. The good news is that, with regard to both of these rules, we have been able to roll them back. According to the Colorado Farm Bureau, the waters of the United States regulation threatened to add additional regulatory compliance requirements to thousands of stream miles and thousands of acres of agricultural land. To put that in layman's terms, it basically would have said: Hey, you, the Federal Government, you are in charge of every molecule of water. That is not good for agriculture. Thankfully, the administration has said: No, we are going to stop that, and we are going to repeal it. Courts across this country had actually put in stays. The Presiding Officer from the great State of Iowa--our colleague, Joni Ernst--was a leader when it came to stopping the waters of the United States regulation. Luckily, we have seen that regulation being stopped in its tracks. In Colorado, two-thirds of waterways were identified as what is known as ``intermittent flow.'' That means that they do not have water in them year round, that, part of the year, they are dry. Yet they would have been subject to a regulation known as the waters of the United States, even though they did not have water in them. That is the absurdity of the Federal Government. So I am glad that we are able to start rolling back these regulations. At the same time, the Bureau of Land Management had started a process known as its BLM 2.0 rulemaking process, which is a rule that they had issued that they thought would deal with complex permitting issues and land use decisions. Unfortunately, what this rule would have done instead is take away access to thousands of acres of Federal land that were used for grazing. Even more disturbing, it would have given somebody in downtown New York City just as much say over the land in Moffat County, CO, as a Moffat County commissioner--somebody who lives there--amongst various agencies in the Federal Government that oversee thousands of acres of public lands. That, too, was overturned by the U.S. Senate. In fact, if you look at the total number of regulations that the administration and that the U.S. Congress has been able to overturn, we are approaching $60 billion worth of regulatory relief that we have been able to give to the American people; $60 billion worth of regulations have been taken off the backs of hard-working Americans and has allowed them to do their jobs easier, allowed them to make ends meet easier, allowed them to breathe easier when it comes to job creation and job opportunity. I am very glad that we saw the BLM 2.0 rule repealed, which gives our people in Colorado a little bit more of a chance to have a say in what happens in their front yards and their backyards. Of course, the waters of the United States has to continue to be something that we stop as we move forward. There are other positive steps we should take to give our producers additional regulatory certainty. I know there is more that we can do, and I hope to hear from our Nation's farmers and ranchers and our farmers and ranchers in Colorado on how Congress and the Federal Government can help. So I use this opportunity to make an appeal to people across the country in order to hear from farmers and ranchers, whether you are in the Eastern Plains of Colorado or on the Western Slope of Colorado or in the great State of Iowa or Kansas or anywhere in between and outside the State of Colorado--inside and outside--of the things that we can be doing, such as with trade policy, regulatory policy, financial services opportunities, making sure we have farm bill programs that are working. Back in my office, we want to hear about these ideas and about thoughts moving forward on these important issues so that we can have an agricultural community that thrives and so that we can make sure that, when we talk about bringing generations of farmers and ranchers back to the farm and the ranch, we will get their ideas on how best to do that. This week, I will be sending letters to the Colorado Agriculture Council, which is made up of organizations across the agricultural spectrum in Colorado, as well as to Don Brown, who is the commissioner of the Colorado Department of Agriculture, on what else Congress and the Federal Government can do to help support this industry. Also, there is Julie McCaleb, the Colorado Agriculture Council chair. Basically, I will be writing: Hey, whether it is regulations or legislation, it is important that the administration and Congress understand the impact their policies will have on agriculture. I look forward to hearing from you, your member organizations, and farmers and ranchers throughout the State on how we can work together to ensure Colorado agriculture continues to be effectively represented in Washington. We will be sending this letter, of course, to Commissioner Don Brown. Commissioner Brown is from my hometown. He is a corn farmer and a cattleman. He is somebody who understands firsthand the hard work and challenges that go into making ends meet in agriculture. He also understands the suffering that we are seeing in the farmland right now and that some people may be at their wits' end in terms of trying to deal with their financial struggles. We will be sending these letters out. I encourage people--farmers, ranchers, and leaders in counties--to contact my office and give us their ideas on how we can turn this ``could be coming'' crisis around so that we can actually start improving and growing agriculture again and so that we can make sure that we lead Colorado's diverse agricultural economy into a better state than it is today--in a better place than it is today--in terms of the economy. Here, in the Senate, I believe that same bipartisan support exists for all of us to be reaching out to our communities and making sure that we hear from the heartland of America what we can do to help struggling farmers and ranchers. I thank the Senator for her leadership in agriculture. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor again to express my strong support for a very mainstream, well-qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Last week, this country got to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee carry out days of hearings that questioned and probed Judge Gorsuch's legal approach, that questioned his temperament to the bench, his suitability to be on our Nation's High Court. I believe every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee had at least an hour to question Judge Gorsuch, to provide lengthy opening statements, to have an extended period of time to have a back-and-forth with Judge Gorsuch in order to go over his judicial philosophy--his approach--that he would take with him from the Tenth Circuit Court to the Nation's High Court. A number of interest groups and personal witnesses were talking about whether or not they believe Judge Gorsuch is qualified for the bench, and some were highly favorable and spoke very highly of him, and others opposed his confirmation. That is what is great about this country--to be able to come before our Congress, our government, and to testify for or against somebody who will be in that third important branch of government, the judicial branch. It is incredibly inspiring to watch this process unfold. There were student groups around the country, classes and teachers, who were watching the confirmation hearing as a project, as an educational experience, as a lesson in civics, democracy, and government. I mentioned, of course, that Judge Gorsuch is a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court today. He is a fourth generation Coloradan. He was confirmed to that position in 2006, 11 years ago, unanimously. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court 11 years ago unanimously. Based on some of the comments we have heard opposing Judge Gorsuch, it is hard to believe that anybody would have supported him unanimously 11 years ago--based on the things we have heard from the other side of the aisle about him. Judge Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by 12 current Democratic Senators who did not oppose his confirmation 11 years ago and who serve in this body today. Twelve Democratic Senators serve in this Chamber today who agreed with his confirmation or didn't oppose his confirmation 11 years ago. In fact, not a single Democrat opposed his nomination--not a single one, and his nomination was unanimous--not Minority Leader Schumer, not Senator Leahy, not Senator Feinstein, not Senator Durbin, not Senator Cantwell, not Senator Carper, not Senator Menendez, not Senator Murray, not Senator Nelson, not Senator Reid, not Senator Stabenow, and not Senator Wyden. Judge Gorsuch's nomination also was not opposed by then- Senator Barack Obama. It was not opposed by then-Senator Joe Biden, and it was not opposed by then-Senator Hillary Clinton. This level of support for the other party's nomination is almost unheard of in today's political climate. But now, these very same colleagues are vowing to break 230 years of Senate tradition, to dispense with 230 years of precedent, and to join a partisan filibuster of a nominee who has the right judicial temperament and holds mainstream views that are supported by the Constitution. Throughout the confirmation hearing process, we heard Judge Gorsuch talk about the over 2,000 opinions that he was a part of--2,700 decisions that he was a part of--and I believe he testified before the committee that he joined in the majority in 97 percent of those opinions. That is somebody who sounds to me like the person who could have received the unanimous support of the Senate--who did receive the unanimous support of the Senate, including colleagues who serve with us today. But, unfortunately, across the aisle, we still haven't heard a reason articulated--a compelling rationale--for why this supremely qualified nominee should be opposed. Sometimes they will reference a letter from a law student at the University of Colorado, or perhaps they will find one case out of the 2,700 cases that tugs at the heartstrings but not at the law and try to hang their hat on that decision as to why they should oppose Judge Gorsuch. To use a baseball analogy, it is a little bit like a batting average. You would think that a professional baseball player that had a 400 batting average was a pretty doggone good baseball player, but that would mean they missed the ball a heck of a lot much of the time. It seems to me the argument they are making with Judge Gorsuch is that unless he had a perfect batting average and never missed a single pitch and had a hit every single time--that is the standard, apparently, that our colleagues are looking for. It is a standard that no one has ever met in this country before. We are looking for mainstream judges with the right temperament and the right philosophy, and that is what Judge Gorsuch has proven time and again in the Tenth Circuit Court--that temperament that we need on the highest Court. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle should abandon their threats of a filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote to occur for Judge Gorsuch. It is what Senate tradition and precedent requires. Today, though, I thought it important to talk about Judge Gorsuch's exceptionally strong record on religious liberty. Judge Gorsuch is perhaps widely known for his participation in the Tenth Circuit's Hobby Lobby case, a decision which involved the protections afforded by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and which was ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. In his concurrence, Judge Gorsuch made a number of telling pronouncements regarding religious liberty. Regarding the case, he wrote that the law in question requires the owners of Hobby Lobby to ``violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.'' Let me say that again. In Hobby Lobby, Judge Gorsuch wrote that the law requires the owners of Hobby Lobby to ``violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.'' In determining which religious beliefs are entitled to protection, Judge Gorsuch said it doesn't matter if the beliefs are contestable or even offensive. It only matters if they are sincerely held--if they are sincerely held. He went on to stress that ``it is not the place of courts of law to question the correctness or the consistency of tenets of religious faith, only to protect the exercise of faith.'' It is these same constitutional principles of religious liberty that Judge Gorsuch has also used to protect religious minorities and prison inmates. In Yellowbear v. Lampert, Judge Gorsuch ruled that a Native American prisoner was entitled to the use of a prison sweat lodge under Federal law. Judge Gorsuch went on to stress that while prisoners give up many liberties, the freedom to sincerely express their religion is not one of them. His reasoning was later adopted by the Supreme Court to extend similar religious liberty protections to a Muslim prisoner. Judge Sotomayor even quoted the opinion of Judge Gorsuch in her concurrence in that case. From his opinions, it is clear that Judge Gorsuch is a mainstream nominee who understands the importance of putting personal beliefs aside and applying the law as written. This is why George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley argued that Judge Gorsuch shouldn't be penalized for his past opinions. As he said, ``the jurisprudence reflect, not surprisingly, a jurist who crafts his decisions very close to the text of a statute and, in my view, that is no vice for a federal judge.'' It is for the reasons I have cited today and for the reasons we have seen over the past week that I am certain Judge Gorsuch will make Colorado proud and that his decisions will have a positive impact on the Supreme Court and this country for generations to come. I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle to expeditiously confirm his nomination and to make sure that we uphold the best traditions and the precedent of this Senate. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I understand there is a time agreement on the recess before lunch. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish and complete my remarks.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, over the past several days, the American people have had a chance to participate in the Supreme Court nomination process by watching Judge Neil Gorsuch, judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, take questions from the Judiciary Committee. For several days now, there have been hearings, with the Judiciary Committee's meeting 12 hours yesterday or so and, the day before, there being a number of speeches from every member of the Judiciary Committee. I and Senator Bennet, my colleague from Colorado, had the great privilege of introducing Judge Gorsuch on Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think what people across the country are seeing in this confirmation process is a judge who has a keen grasp of the law, a judge who understands the limits of power that are placed on the judicial branch, understands the role of the executive branch, understands the role of the legislative branch, and how he as a judge is supposed to rule when it comes to checking that balance of power. We also see, of course, after 12 hours of questioning--everything from the kind of temperament he has to the kinds of decisions he would make--that he is an even-tempered individual who would serve this country well. So I come to the floor again to talk about my support for Judge Gorsuch. Eleven years ago, this Chamber unanimously confirmed Judge Gorsuch through a voice vote for his position in 2006 on the Tenth Circuit Court. Judge Gorsuch has been described as a ``brilliant legal mind'' by the Denver Post and both liberal and conservative attorneys in Denver. He is a mainstream jurist who has the right temperament and the right view of judging in order to be on the Supreme Court, according to the Denver Post. Moreover, Judge Gorsuch is a faithful and ardent defender of our Constitution, a judge who has, time and again, shown a fidelity to the separation of powers and the limited role of government that was envisioned and prescribed by our Founders. It is no wonder that Judge Gorsuch has always enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, 12 of our current Senate colleagues, including minority leader Senator Schumer and Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin, all of whom are on the Judiciary Committee, were in office in 2006 when Judge Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the Tenth Circuit. None of them opposed his confirmation-- none of them. Perhaps the best question for them today would be: Do you regret that decision 11 years ago? Did you not do enough work to know the nominee then? When Senator Graham held his committee hearing 11 years ago--the confirmation process--no one else showed up. It was an empty dais. If you tuned in to watch C-SPAN on Monday or Tuesday, you saw a different level of participation from the Judiciary Committee. What a difference a court makes. So I hope this process is one that will be shown to be fair to the American people--this process of getting to know Judge Gorsuch's temperament and his legal philosophy, but not 1 of the 12 Democratic Members who are here today and who were here in 2006 voted against him in 2006. The approval of Judge Gorsuch was also in addition to a few other colleagues who have since left. We were joined at that time--Judge Gorsuch was supported at that time by then-Senator Barack Obama, by then-Senator Joe Biden, by then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, at that point, by Senator John Kerry, all of whom participated in the confirmation process of Judge Gorsuch 11 years ago and all of whom did not oppose his nomination on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It shouldn't come as a surprise, if you have been paying attention to the confirmation process, to watch a mainstream consensus pick for the Supreme Court answer questions. From when the hearings began--of course, just a couple days ago--I think, since then, we have seen overwhelming bipartisan support emerge publicly in the Senate, once again, and we will see that emerge over the next several weeks. Several of our colleagues from across the aisle have already indicated they believe Judge Gorsuch deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope that will continue. A fair shake in this process is what we are asking for. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues from across the aisle that he deserves a fair shake and an up-or-down vote. Let's give him that fair shake. Let's give him that up-or-down vote. Let's make sure the process remains fair, and let's give it in a timely fashion. Let's also give the American people a fair shake. Let's not forget that Judge Gorsuch is their choice for the Supreme Court. The American people rejected the previous administration's nominee and instead chose Judge Gorsuch. We should respect the will of the American people. Today, I would also like to speak about Judge Gorsuch's jurisprudence on the separation of powers and the administrative state. Under the previous administration, I, like many Coloradans and many of my distinguished Senate colleagues, grew worried as we watched continued administrative overreach. We watched 8 years of continued administrative overreach, agency overreach, and a judiciary that was ill-suited, or not inclined, to push back on the executive branch's unconstitutional overreach. As James Madison warned us in Federalist No. 47, ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self- appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' It is, therefore, James Madison concluded, that the separation of powers must be a ``sacred maxim of free government.'' That is what we are seeing in this debate over the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. Through his writing, Judge Gorsuch undoubtedly recognizes this sacred maxim of free government. The questions he is receiving and the answers he is giving talk about that sacred maxim of free government. His body of work indicates, one, an understanding that there are clear constitutional limits to administrative agency power; two, it also demonstrates and illustrates a willingness to ensure agencies do not exceed their statutory authority; three, a genuine concern for the due process of regulated parties, which rightly requires these parties to receive clear notice on the scope of the regulations they must follow; and, four, a recognition that there are constitutional limits on the lawmaking responsibilities that Congress can delegate to the executive branch. Remember, going back to the founding of our country and the arguments that took place over the type of government we should have, this Nation started first with the Articles of Confederation and this loose collection of States--States that were able to print their own money, States that were able to raise their own militia because they feared the power of tyranny; they feared the power of centralized government that the British monarch represented, but that loose Confederation wasn't working so our Founders realized they had to go back to the drawing board to come up with something different. So in the late 1700s--1787, 1788--we saw this great debate break out published across the pages of papers in New York and throughout the country as the anti-Federalists and the Federalists began debating what kind of a government we should have. We had to recognize that too much government was a bad thing, but we also recognized that when we were too loose with that government, then it wouldn't function either. So James Madison and others who had gotten together recognized that we should put forward a different type of government, and they did so in the Constitution, but they did it amongst guidance by people like James Madison and Federalist No. 47. They did so understanding that one branch of our government wouldn't gain an unfair advantage over another branch of the government. As the years since that debate in 1789 took place, we have seen that there has been a mission creep, so to speak; that there has been a branch overreach, as the executive branch has grown in power at the expense of the legislative branch. I wish I could say that was all the fault of the executive branch, but it certainly hasn't been. At times, the legislative branch has yielded too much power and too much authority. Instead of doing its job, the legislative branch has given that authority to the executive branch. Of course, the executive branch hasn't just pushed it away, saying: No, don't do that. They have taken it. Both Republicans and Democrats, over the past several years, have done exactly that, but it has hurt our balance of powers, and it has hurt that very idea enshrined in Federalist No. 47; that we have to make sure the same hands don't hold all the power of government, leading to that maxim of free government. So a judge who understands and who will rule that there are clear constitutional limits to administrative agency power is an important philosophy. It is an important approach that a judge would have. A judge who is showing a willingness to ensure that agencies don't exceed their statutory authority--we need that in our Nation's Court. We need that on our Nation's High Court to restore the balance of power. We need someone with a genuine concern for due process, someone who recognizes that there are constitutional limits on lawmaking responsibilities that Congress can delegate to the executive branch. That is why it is important we talk about the views of Judge Gorsuch and the questions he is being asked because his views are rooted in the Constitution--very mainstream rules that are rooted in the Constitution, mainstream views that should ease any concerns our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have about Judge Gorsuch. As Judge Gorsuch explained in his famous concurring opinion on the deference given to administrative agencies interpretations, the so- called Chevron doctrine, he said: We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again. Put simply, it seems to me that in a world without Chevron very little would change-- except perhaps the most important things. That maxim of free government, that balance of power, the separation of powers, the limits on the administrative agency powers, it is something that I think we have to focus more time on, to restore the role we are supposed to play. We need to restore the role we are not just supposed to play but the role we are mandated by the Constitution to fulfill. For these reasons, and many others I have shared on the floor, I look forward to working with my distinguished Democratic colleagues to make sure Judge Gorsuch gets that fair shake and that timely up-or-down vote and I certainly hope the bipartisan support he deserves. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington State for delaying the quorum call. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today and to share some of the conversations I had yesterday before the Judiciary Committee in regard to the confirmation of a Coloradan, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who now serves on the Tenth Circuit Court, which is housed in Denver, CO. Yesterday began his confirmation hearing before the Senate--the first step in a process which will ultimately end in his confirmation as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a great honor to be able to introduce Judge Gorsuch to the committee. It is a tradition that Members of the Senate from the home State of the judge nominated to serve on the High Court be allowed to introduce the nominee--in this case, a judge of the Tenth Circuit Court. I joined my Democratic colleague Michael Bennet from Colorado in this tradition and am very excited to express my support for Judge Neil Gorsuch. I thought this afternoon I would share some of the comments I gave yesterday before the committee. I will start by talking about Confluence Park in Denver, CO. In downtown Denver, if you look at Cherry Creek and the South Platte River, they join together. That is where the Colorado Gold Rush began. When it was first discovered, it started bringing people out to the West, out to Colorado, to a place now known as Confluence Park, where the two rivers come together. At Confluence Park in Denver, if you look, there is a plaque on one of the walls there that has a poem written on it from Colorado poet laureate Thomas Hornsby Ferril. It is a poem known as ``Two Rivers'' describing the settlement of the West. The poem ends with this: I wasn't here, yet I remember them. That first night long ago, those wagon people Who pushed aside enough of the cottonwoods To build our city where the blueness rested. ``Where the optimistic blueness of our Colorado skies rests against the mountains and the plains'' is a good description of our great State. We are reminded about how incredibly diverse our great Nation is, its people and its geography. Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court helps recognize the diversity in geography, the diversity of our country, and it helps to recognize that indeed there are highly qualified jurists who reside west of the Mississippi River. Judge Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan. He is a skier. He is a fly-fisherman. He serves on a court that represents 20 percent of our Nation's landmass. Once confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will be only the second Coloradan to have ever served on the Nation's highest Court. The first Coloradan to serve on the High Court was Justice Byron White. Justice Byron White also led the NFL in rushing, which is something Neil Gorsuch won't be able to claim when he is confirmed but is certainly something that makes his confirmation as the second Coloradan unique in our history. Should he be confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will also make history as he represents the first Generation X Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the emerging generation of American leadership. Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court unanimously by voice vote in this Chamber in 2006. In fact, 12 current Democratic Senators did not oppose his confirmation, including three distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator Leahy, and Senator Durbin are all members of the Judiciary Committee who supported, through voice vote, his nomination. Eleven years ago, Senator Graham presided over an empty committee dais as Neil Gorsuch faced his confirmation in 2006. No one showed up. What a difference a court can make. The level of bipartisan support for his 2006 nomination is almost unheard of in today's political climate, but when you look at his record, his writings, and his statements, it is easy to see why Judge Gorsuch has such overwhelming support. Judge Gorsuch is not an ideologue. He is a mainstream jurist who follows the law as written and doesn't try to supplant it with his own personal policy preferences. As he said, ``Personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and conclusions always do.'' Judge Gorsuch is not an activist judge but, rather, a faithful adherent to and ardent defender of our Constitution. Judge Gorsuch said that judges have a ``foundational duty'' to ``do more than merely consider [the Constitution]. . . . They take an oath to uphold it.'' The judge recognizes that the judiciary is not the place for social or constitutional experimentation and that efforts to engage in such experimentation delegitimize the Court. As he said, ``This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. . . . As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.'' Judge Gorsuch has a deep appreciation and respect for the constitutional principle of federalism and the separation of powers prescribed by our Founding Fathers. As he stated, ``A firm and independent judiciary is critical to a well-functioning democracy.'' Judge Gorsuch understands the advantage of democratic institutions and the special authority and legitimacy that come from the consent of the governed. As he said, ``Judges must allow the elected branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the day.'' Judge Gorsuch appreciates the rule of law and respects the considered judgment of those who came before him. As he said, ``A good judge will seek to honor precedent and strive to avoid its disparagement or displacement.'' It is this appropriate temperament, this fidelity to the Constitution, this remarkable humility that has made Judge Gorsuch such a consensus pick among Colorado's diverse legal and legislative communities. Former Colorado Senator, Democrat Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior under Barack Obama, in praising Judge Gorsuch's temperament, said during his circuit court confirmation: [A] judicial nominee should have a demonstrated dedication to fairness, impartiality, precedent, and the avoidance of judicial activism--from both the left and the right. I believe that Mr. Gorsuch meets this very high test. A very prominent Colorado lawyer and former adviser to President Bill Clinton said: Judge Gorsuch's intellect, energy, and deep regard for the Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked with him and have seen firsthand his commitment to basic principles. Above all, this independence, fairness, and impartiality are the hallmarks of his career and his well- earned reputation. Hundreds of prominent liberal and conservative Colorado attorneys support Judge Gorsuch, writing this bipartisan letter of support praising the judge: We hold a diverse set of political views as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Many of us have been critical of actions taken by President Trump. Nonetheless, we all agree that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally well qualified to join the Supreme Court. He deserves an up-or-down vote. The people who know him best in Colorado--they have worked with him in the Tenth Circuit Court, and they have worked with him in private practice--believe that he deserves an up-or-down vote, believe that he is exceptionally well qualified to join the Supreme Court. One of the individuals, one of the lawyers, one of the Democrats who signed that very letter, who wrote this phrase, was a Democrat who was the cochairman of the host committee for the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008 that saw the nomination of then-Senator Barack Obama to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 ticket. Colorado's former Democratic Governor Bill Ritter and former Republican Attorney General John Suthers jointly said: It is time to use this confirmation process to examine and exalt the characteristics of a judge who demonstrates that he or she is scholarly, compassionate, committed to the law, and will function as part of a truly independent, apolitical judiciary. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill. Judge Gorsuch has a consistent record of applying the law fairly, and his reputation among his peers and lawmakers is evidence of it. According to the Denver Post, Marcy Glenn, a Denver attorney and Democrat, recalls two cases before Gorsuch in which she represented underdogs, and she said: ``He issued a decision that most certainly focused on the little guy.'' That same article cited another example. ``Judge Gorsuch can't be pigeonholed as either pro-prosecution or pro-defense,'' said Peter Krumholz, a Denver appellate attorney who reviewed the nominee's criminal law record. ``He is very independent and will not hesitate to rule in favor of a criminal defendant's rights when he thinks it's warranted by the Constitution.'' For all these reasons cited today and the many reasons that have been cited over the past several weeks, I am certain Judge Gorsuch will make Colorado proud and that his opinions will have a positive impact on this country for generations to come. I look forward to Judge Gorsuch receiving a fair hearing today, tomorrow, and after that, to working with my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle to expeditiously confirm his nomination. Thomas Hornsby Ferril, a great poet laureate, wrote another poem. This one is memorialized on a mural painted in the rotunda of the Colorado capitol. It ends with these words: ``Beyond the sundown is tomorrow's wisdom. Today is going to be long, long ago.'' The wisdom of Neil Gorsuch, guardian of the Constitution, will serve our Nation well for generations to come.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, we will see his confirmation in the weeks to come. As I have come to the floor and talked about before, Judge Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan who serves on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the U.S. circuit court that is housed in Denver, CO. It is the circuit court that oversees about 20 percent of the land mass in the States of Colorado, Oklahoma, and places in between. Once he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch will become the second Coloradan to have served on the Court. We have a great history of another Supreme Court Justice who served on the highest Court. Associate Justice Byron White had the distinction of being the only Supreme Court Justice to lead the NFL in rushing, and he was also from Colorado. If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, Justice Gorsuch will join Byron White as another Coloradan on the High Court. Justice Rutledge also received his bachelor's of law degree from the University of Colorado. So we do have a great history of Colorado westerners joining our Nation's highest Court. Mr. Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court a little over 10 years ago--11 years ago--in 2006, by a unanimous voice vote. He was so popular and so well supported that there was not even a rollcall vote taken in this Chamber. It was a simple acclamation by a voice vote. In fact, Gorsuch's nomination hearing was deemed so noncontroversial that the last time, Senator Graham was the only committee member to attend. One may ask oneself what made and continues to make Judge Gorsuch such a mainstream nominee. I do not think we need to look any further than his original Judiciary Committee questionnaire to see that Judge Gorsuch possesses the right temperament and the right view of the role of judges. I thought it was important that I read this from 11 years ago when Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court. The questionnaire he filled out for the Judiciary Committee included then- Neil Gorsuch's--trying to be Judge Gorsuch--response to judicial activism and what it meant to Neil Gorsuch prior to his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit Court. Here is what he replied to the Judiciary Committee in that committee questionnaire: The Constitution requires Federal judges to strike a delicate balance. The separation of powers embodied in our founding document provides the judiciary with a defined and limited charter. Judges must allow the elected branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the day. Judges must avoid the temptation to usurp the roles of the legislative and executive branches and must appreciate the advantages these democratic institutions have in crafting and adapting social policy as well as their special authority, derived from the consent and mandate of the people, to do so. At the same time, the Founders were anxious to ensure that the judicial branch never becomes captured by or subservient to the other branches of government, recognizing that a firm and independent judiciary is critical to a well- functioning democracy. The Constitution imposes on the judiciary the vital work of settling disputes, vindicating civil rights and civil liberties, ensuring equal treatment under the law, and helping to make real for all citizens the Constitution's promise of self-government. There may be no firmly fixed formula on how to strike the balance envisioned by the Constitution in specific cases, but there are many guideposts discernible in the best traditions of our judiciary. A wise judge recognizes that his or her own judgment is only a weak reed without being fortified by these proven guides. For example, a good judge recognizes that many of the lawyers in cases reaching the court of appeals have lived with and thought deeply about the legal issues before the court for months or years. A lawyer in the well is not to be treated as a cat's paw but as a valuable colleague whose thinking is to be mined and tested and who, at all times, deserves to be treated with respect and common courtesy. A good judge will diligently study counsels' briefs and the record and seek to digest them fully before argument and then listen with respectful discernment to the arguments made by his or her colleagues at the bar. A good judge will recognize that few questions in the law are truly novel, that precedents in the vast body of Federal law reflect the considered judgment of those who have come before us and embody the settled expectation of those in our own generation. A good judge will seek to honor precedent and strive to avoid its disparagement or displacement. A good judge will listen to his or her colleagues and strive to reach consensus with them. Every judge takes the same judicial oath; every judge brings a different and valuable perspective to the office. A good judge will appreciate the different experiences and perspectives of his or her colleagues and know that reaching consensus is not always easy but that the process of getting there often tempers the ultimate result, ensuring that the ultimate decision reflects the collective wisdom of multiple individuals of disparate backgrounds who have studied the issue with care. Throughout the process of adjudicating an appeal, a good judge will question not only the positions espoused by the litigants but also his or her own perceptions and tentative conclusions as they evolve. And a good judge will critically examine his or her own ideas as readily and openly as the ideas advanced by others. A good judge will never become so wedded to any view of any case so as to preclude the possibility of changing his or her mind at any stage--from argument through the completion of a written opinion. Pride of position, fear of embarrassment associated with changing one's mind, along, of course, with personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and conclusions always do. This is the response that then-Neil Gorsuch, prior to his becoming Judge Gorsuch, gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in response to a questionnaire about judicial activism and about what makes a good judge in his talking about fidelity to precedent, talking about the ability to reach a conclusion that may be in disagreement with one's own personal opinions, making sure that we respect the different branches of government, making sure that one listens to one's colleagues who are arguing a case and who have spent years in their getting to know the case and its every detail, and scrubbing your mind to question the positions that you thought you had to make sure that they mesh with the law, not with opinion. Judge Gorsuch, when he was introduced at the White House when being nominated by the President, said that a judge who agrees with every opinion he reaches is probably a bad judge. The institution we serve has that fidelity to the Constitution that we must preserve, that we must guard. Guardians of the Constitution, which judges represent, is something we confirm. It is our job to make sure the kind of judges we place on courts represent the kind of judge Neil Gorsuch truly is. It is this temperament, this fidelity to the Constitution, this appropriate temperament, and remarkable humility that has made Judge Gorsuch a consensus pick in the past and, I believe, that could be a consensus pick in the near future. It is reflected in the fact that, on February 23, Senator Bennet and I, along with the Judiciary Committee, received a letter from Colorado's diverse legal community in support of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. The letter reads as follows: As members of the Colorado legal community, we are proud to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be our next Supreme Court Justice. We hold a diverse set of political views as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Many of us have been critical of actions taken by President Trump. Nonetheless, we all agree that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally well qualified to join the Supreme Court. He deserves an up- or-down vote. We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of utmost character. He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a judge and as a person. His record shows that he believes strongly in the independence of the judiciary. Judge Gorsuch has a well- earned reputation as an excellent jurist. He voted with the majority in 98% of the cases he heard on the 10th Circuit, a great portion of which were joined by judges appointed by Democratic Presidents. Seven of his opinions have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--four unanimously--and none has been reversed. We ask that Colorado's Senators join together and support this highly qualified nominee from Colorado. Regardless of the politics involved in prior confirmation efforts, including what many consider to be the mistreatment of Judge Garland's nomination, a filibuster now will do Colorado no good. Judge Gorsuch deserves a fair shake in the confirmation process. Please vote against a filibuster and vote for Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. This letter from James Lyons is another such letter talking about the importance of the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. I couldn't agree more with this letter and the letter that I read. Judge Gorsuch is an exceptionally qualified jurist, to use their words, and he deserves a fair shake in the confirmation process that includes a timely up-or-down vote. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to make sure we fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court with one of this Nation's truly brilliant legal minds. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I have 6 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:

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, looking at today's headlines and listening to the news, it may seem as if colleagues from across the country--Democrat, Republican--don't always agree on some things, let alone anything. I think we are starting to see a consensus emerge--a very good, genuine agreement emerge between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans on at least one matter in Washington, DC, in the Senate: Neil Gorsuch. That agreement is on Neil Gorsuch. Neil Gorsuch is an exceptional nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, Judge Gorsuch is, by many extents and by many commentators, arguably one of the most talented jurists we have nominated to the Court in a very long time, at least in modern history. As the Denver Post in Colorado said: ``Gorsuch is a brilliant legal mind'' who has a reputation for ``[applying] the law fairly and consistently.'' You can't ask for much more than that--somebody who will apply the law fairly and consistently. However, this shouldn't surprise anyone who knows Judge Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch has always enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. All we need to do to see that is to look back to 2006 when we could see that most clearly in the U.S. Senate. In 2006, when Judge Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court, 12 current Democratic Senators, including the minority leader and Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin, all were in office. It was a nomination in 2006 that was unanimous, a nomination that went by voice vote. He was so universally appealing to the Tenth Circuit Court that he had an introduction at the Judiciary Committee by both a Democratic Senator from Colorado and a Republican Senator from Colorado, joined by every single person on the floor to vote yes unanimously. They approved his nomination. And to give you even greater context about this vote, the people who made this vote, the approval of Judge Gorsuch in 2006 to the Tenth Circuit Court came in addition to the 12 people I just mentioned who are here today and who were here then. It also came with the support of then-Senator Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, and Senator Kerry. Approximately 11 years later, now that Judge Gorsuch has proved himself to be a mainstream jurist, a consensus builder, a profound legal mind with an even temperament and affable nature, we have a chance again to put this incredibly brilliant mind on the Nation's highest Court. Judge Gorsuch is a faithful adherent to the Constitution and the organizing principles of this great democracy. I have no doubt that Judge Gorsuch will--and should--enjoy similar levels of approval among my distinguished colleagues across the aisle. I also wish for people to learn more about Judge Gorsuch personally and to tell some stories about growing up in Colorado. It is a story about how a young man from Denver, CO, through his own hard work and academic excellence, rose to the highest echelons of the legal profession and to the nearly universal acclaim of Democrats and Republicans. A fourth-generation Coloradan, Neil Gorsuch learned the value of hard work at a young age from his grandfathers. His maternal grandfather, Dr. Joseph McGill, began his adult life by working in Union Station, the main railway terminal in Denver. From there, Dr. McGill put himself through medical school and became a prominent surgeon. With his wife, Dorothy Jean, Dr. McGill raised seven children, all of whom he gave a better life to and put through college. Neil's paternal grandfather, John Gorsuch, was his legal inspiration. After serving in World War I, John Gorsuch put himself through undergraduate and law school at the University of Denver by driving a trolley car. Upon graduation, John built a law practice focusing on real estate law. He also made time to help Denver's welfare department and participate in the Kiwanis Club and numerous other civic organizations. Later, John started what was at one time one of the largest law firms in Denver, Gorsuch Kirgis, where he practiced well into his eighties. It was this family work ethic that drove Neil to get his hands dirty and pursue blue collar jobs at a young age. In Colorado, he moved furniture, he shoveled snow, he mowed lawns, and he even shoveled some more snow in the great State of Colorado. It was this work ethic--and a lot of shoveling of snow--combined with his family's appreciation of higher education that helped Neil consistently realize academic excellence. By now, I think this Chamber is well familiar with Judge Gorsuch's sterling academic credentials, receiving his undergraduate degree at Columbia, law school at Harvard, Ph.D. at Oxford. I don't think any of us can forget, nor should we, the fact that he spent a summer at the University of Colorado. Intellect alone doesn't get you through the halls of these storied academic institutions. It requires hard work, independence--two values of the West; two values in addition to many other western values that Judge Gorsuch holds. It is these values, these western perspectives that the Supreme Court desperately needs to grow. Judge Gorsuch is a lifelong outdoorsman. He enjoys fly fishing and skiing. In fact, I have been told that he is a double black diamond skier. His wife, Louise, cares for animals in a small barn on his land. In addition to his love of the outdoors and his appreciation of nature's beauty, Judge Gorsuch understands the complex legal issues facing westerners and our Western States. Since 2006, Judge Gorsuch served on the Federal court that covers the Tenth Circuit Court based out of Denver that covers six other Western States--Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. Those States represent nearly 20 percent of the land of the continental United States. His service on this court has provided him with a unique understanding of public lands, water, and Tribal issues that many of the other Western States in the region face. Some of the most complex legal challenges in water law and others come before his court as a result. That experience would serve all of our Western States well when utilized from the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the coming days, I plan, along with many of my other colleagues, to elaborate on why Gorsuch's western values and perspective make him an outstanding choice for the U.S. Supreme Court. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure he gets a timely up-or-down vote. From the highest echelons of the legal field to the Tenth Circuit Court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch would make us proud, and he would serve this country well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer is a fellow westerner, from a State that is impacted by decisions made by our public lands management agencies, whether that is the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Both Colorado and Arizona, as well as Wyoming and Utah--all of our Western States--are greatly affected by decisions that are made in Washington, DC. In a conversation I had with the Presiding Officer from Arizona, we discussed the fact that 85 percent of the State of Arizona is managed by the Federal Government. Whether it is the State or a Tribal entity or the Federal Government, about 47 percent is being federally managed. In the State of Colorado, about half of our State is managed by a public entity. Whether that is the State or a Tribal entity or the Forest Service, BLM land, the Department of the Interior, roughly half of the State is managed by the Federal Government, the State government or others. In other words, it is not in private landownership. So that means that the decisions made by these public land management agencies have a significantly outsized impact on our States than it does on States say east of the Mississippi. So today I come to the floor to talk about one of those decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management's planning 2.0 rule. The discussion we are having today is about whether we should approve a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to stop the BLM 2.0 rule from going forward. The Bureau of Land Management has over 245 million acres of public land. Almost all of those acres are west of the Mississippi River, predominantly in 12 States. The final BLM 2.0 rule is an example of how little Washington bureaucrats understand about the West and how little they understand about how the Federal Government and how Federal policymaking doesn't work when you try to take something they think of in Washington and put it on the people of the West. It is the promulgation of this rule that actually led to my call for relocating the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management out of Washington, DC, and to put it in a place like Grand Junction, CO, because I believe it is important that we have public land managers and decisions about our public lands being made by those who are directly affected by that public land being in their backyard. If you live in the State of Colorado or if you are a county commissioner on the Western Slope, some of those counties have over 90 percent of their county managed by the Federal Government. A decision made by that public land agency directly impacts them, not in a couple of weeks or months or next year but that very same day. To have somebody from Washington, DC, deciding a one-size-fits-all approach that is going to apply to a Western Slope county commissioner is just absurd. So moving the BLM headquarters to a place like Colorado or Arizona would absolutely result in better policies that work on the ground for our Governors, landowners, county commissioners, farmers, ranchers, cattlemen, energy producers, sportsmen, and recreationalists because they would be nearest to the lands that the decisions being made are affecting. I hope we can move this country away from this ``Washington knows best'' mentality. That is why this resolution of disapproval is so important, because that is exactly what it would do, which is to remove ``Washington knows best'' by stopping the BLM planning 2.0 rule. As it stands, I don't believe this rule should move forward. I have committed to Coloradans, to county commissioners, and to the people of my State that I will always have the goal to put more Colorado in Washington and less Washington in Colorado. A county commissioner in western Colorado, from Dolores, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, or Rio Blanco County should have more say in decisions that are impacting their backyard on BLM lands than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City. They tell me that their ability to have an impact on their backyard lessens as a result of the BLM planning 2.0 rule. They believe they actually have less say under the new rule than somebody who doesn't live anywhere near their land or their State or their county or those BLM lands. I believe that Colorado State and local leaders and local users should have a strong voice on local land management decisions. It is their backyard. Yes, it is public land, but the fact is they are the ones trying to make a living, trying to govern, trying to make decisions that are best for their constituents, and they should have a voice in those decisions. I also firmly believe in managing our public lands under the multiple-use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy development with a balanced approach. If the Congressional Review Act's resolution of disapproval on the BLM planning 2.0 rule is approved and signed into law, there will still be an opportunity to improve management and update policies at the Bureau of Land Management. I think that is one of the areas of misinformation that we see about resolutions of disapproval. There are some who support the BLM planning 2.0 rule, and there are some who have supported other rules that this Chamber has voted to disapprove through the Congressional Review Act. Those people who support it sometimes get their facts wrong when they say things like: Well, if you repeal this rule, if you approve the resolution of disapproval, then there is no way that you can actually rule in this area again or make a regulation that impacts this area of law again. That is simply not true. The truth is, when you use a resolution of disapproval, it simply says that we think this is the wrong rule that went forward through the executive branch agencies and we ought to use Congress--those people who understand the needs of their States better than a rulemaker in Washington, DC--to go forward with a new piece of legislation, a new authorization for a different rule. If we do that, then, we are going to have better policies because we have been able to account for every voice in the process, instead of leaving voices like those county commissioners, whom I talked about, out to dry. I have told many recreationalists and sportsmen in Colorado that I am working with our Democratic colleagues and Secretary Zinke at the Department of the Interior on how we can move forward with the land management decisions and land use plans that take into account some of their concerns with this resolution of disapproval. There are updates and modifications that can be achieved, but they should all have stakeholder input. I don't believe that this planning rule 2.0 actually took into account all of the different stakeholders' views. Working with some landowners cannot be at the expense of others. Right now, our cattlemen, farmers, ranchers, and county commissioners have severe concerns with BLM planning 2.0, and they feel as though they did not have a voice in the development of this rule. I believe we can do better as elected officials and that we can give these local users' and landowners' interests a stronger voice in moving forward and that we can move forward together. So let's approve this resolution of disapproval that would claw back the BLM 2.0 rule. Let's make sure that local voices are given a place at the table. Let's make sure that county commissioners have influence over their area that is greater than somebody in New York City who doesn't live there. Let's make sure that we can protect the multiple-use philosophy of our public lands. Whether it is energy, recreation, or renewable energy, we have incredible opportunities on our public lands. But we can do better by working with Congress and taking into account every voice and making sure that we have a rule that is broadly supported instead of narrowly supported. That is why I intend to support the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval today, and I hope that my colleagues will do the same, as we truly find a bipartisan solution to give the people of our States a greater say over policies that affect their own backyard. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, there are few things that I enjoy more than bragging about my hometown. I live in a little town called Yuma, CO, out in the Eastern Plains. It is a town of about 3,500 people. If maybe you overexaggerate a little bit, it reaches 4,000. It is out in the middle of the High Plains of Colorado, 4,000 feet in elevation, 40 miles or so from the Kansas-Nebraska border. It is a farming community, 100 percent farming. Everything related to the town is farming. Even the clothing stores are related to farming because if you don't have a strong agriculture economy, nobody is buying blue jeans, nobody is going up to the car dealership to buy a pickup if the bushel of corn isn't priced right. So everything we do in that town is related to agriculture and farming. My family comes from a background of farm equipment business and started a business--101 years old this year--by my great-grandfather. My time working in the dealership started roughly when I was in seventh, eighth grade. They let me do some very complicated tasks, high-skill tasks they let me perform: cleaning the bathroom, sweeping the floors. I did that throughout my time in eighth grade, high school, and college. If I go back today, I am sure they would let me do the same job, clean the bathrooms and sweep the floors. Part of that is because I was selling the wrong parts to a lot of farmers who would come into the dealership. Maybe they were just keeping me off the parts counter for the time being. In fact, maybe that is why people voted for me, to get me off the parts counter and quit selling the wrong parts. Over my time working at the dealership, we witnessed a lot of good times in agriculture. I can remember one time going into my dad's and granddad's office and saying: You know what, the economy is really good. The price of corn is really high right now. We ought to order a whole bunch of farm equipment--a whole bunch of pieces of implements, tillage equipment, tractors, combines--and have them on the lot so we can take advantage of the good times in agriculture. My granddad paused and looked at my dad and said: No, I don't think we should do that because I don't think times are going to be good next year. They were right. This was back in probably the mid-1990s. They had seen it coming because of their experience in the business, the ebbs and flows of agriculture, the good times and the bad times. They were able to recognize, through their own experience, what different economic indicators meant to them and how they could forecast, using their experience, what was going to happen in the farm world the next year. So they decided not to order all that brandnew equipment. They decided not to order the tractors, the combines, and the tillage equipment. It was a good thing because the next year wasn't that great. If this 18-year-old, 19-year-old kid would have had his way, we would have had a whole lot of iron we were paying interest on that year without being able to sell it. Colorado is pretty blessed, with 4,000 companies involved in agriculture, 173,000 jobs in Colorado directly involved in agriculture. The State has more than 35,000 farms and 31 million acres used for farming and ranching. If we look at the Colorado business economic outlook, the net farm income of ranchers and farmers in 2016 is estimated this year to be the lowest it has been since 1986, and the projections for 2017 are even lower. I grew up as a kid in the 1980s, watching perhaps the hardest times agriculture in the United States had faced in decades, watching a lot of people I knew my whole life going out of business, people having to sell the farm because of what was happening in the 1980s, leading to a banking crisis in agriculture in the 1980s, watching banks I had grown up with close. I am concerned in this country that we are going to see the same thing again, beginning in 2016, into 2017, and then into 2018 next year. I am very worried that those tough times we saw in the 1980s, and some of the tough with the good times we saw in the 1990s, and some really good years a few years ago are going to seem like distant memories come later this summer and into next year if we don't do something. I had the opportunity to visit with the Colorado commissioner of agriculture in my office last week, a gentleman by the name of Don Brown. Don Brown is from my hometown of Yuma, CO. It has done pretty well for itself, 3,000 people. The State commissioner of agriculture is from my hometown. The previous commissioner of agriculture, a gentleman by the name of John Stoltz, was from my hometown of Yuma. Both of them grew up in agriculture in that area, understanding what it is like on the High Plains, understanding what it is like to live through good times and bad times. Both of them today I think would tell you, they are very concerned as well about what happens over the next year, the next 2 years. It wasn't that long ago when we saw some of the highest priced commodities this country has ever seen, at least in a very long time-- the golden years of agriculture, some people said--where corn and wheat were priced high. People were able to pay their bills and buy new equipment. Commodity prices don't always stay that high though. The one thing a farmer will tell you is, the price of a piece of farm equipment stays high, the price of fertilizer seems to stay high. When prices come down on their commodities, the other prices--the inputs--stay high, and they find themselves in significant trouble. The price of corn today is estimated to be about $3.15 per bushel. That is what it was in 2016, less than half of the 10-year high price of corn of $6.86 in 2012, just a few years ago. To put that in historical context, the price of corn in 2016 at $3.15 is lower than the price of corn in 1974, the year I was born, when it was $3.20. The price of corn in 2016 was 5 cents lower than it was the year I was born, 1974. It is the same story across the board for Colorado. Wheat prices are down more than $1 from 2015 to 2016 alone and down more than 50 percent since 2012. I can guarantee, even though I may have sold a lot of wrong parts at the implement dealership, those wrong parts didn't come down in price 50 percent. The livestock industry has seen similar trends, with cattle prices at their lowest level since 2010. In farming and agriculture, a lot of times we might see a year where the price of corn is high, but the price of cattle is low or the price of other commodities are high where the price of cattle is low, but when cattle are high, maybe other commodities are low. Farmers who have a diverse operation are able to offset the lows and the highs with a diverse operation--but not this year, and it looks like that may be the case next year. Declines in States' agriculture economy are not unique to Colorado. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, revenues have decreased for agriculture nationwide by more than 10 percent since 2014. Recently, the Wall Street Journal wrote this, and I will show the headline of the Wall Street Journal piece just a couple of weeks ago. The Wall Street has an article entitled ``The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us.'' We have had a lot of debates on this floor. We have had debates about Cabinet members. We have had debates about resolutions of disapprovals. We are talking about a lot of things, but there is a lot of suffering beginning in the heartland of America right now. A lot of farmers and ranchers are suffering. They are worried about how they are going to survive, not just into the next year but how they are going to survive into the next couple of months. The telltale signs of difficult times are all around us in agriculture. This article, ``The Next American Farm Bust Is Upon Us,'' begins to tell the story. Here is what the Wall Street Journal said: The Farm Belt is hurtling toward a milestone: Soon there will be fewer than two million farms in America for the first time since pioneers moved westward after the Louisiana Purchase. Across the heartland, a multiyear slump in prices for corn, wheat and other farm commodities brought on by a glut of grain world-wide is pushing many farmers further into debt. Some are shutting down, raising concerns that the next few years could bring the biggest wave of farm closures since the 1980s. The article highlights the story of a fifth-generation farmer from Western Kansas. I mentioned my hometown is 40 miles away from Kansas. It looks very similar to the Eastern Plains of Colorado where I live. Here is his story: From his father's porch, the 56-year-old can see the windswept spot where his great-grandparents' sod house stood in 1902 when they planted the first of the 1,200 acres on which his family farms alfalfa, sorghum and wheat today. Even after harvesting one of their best wheat crops ever last year, thanks to plentiful rain and a mild winter, Mr. Scott isn't sure how long they can afford to keep farming that ground. There is a lot of work we need to do to make sure Mr. Scott and farmers who live in my community around the Eastern and Western Slope of Colorado will be able to survive over the next year--steps so we can help to make sure we are addressing this crisis head-on, before it begins and develops into a full-blown farm crisis like we saw in the 1980s. We must have serious regulatory reform. In a letter I received from the Colorado Farm Bureau, the letter read: Colorado Farm Bureau recognizes that a major impediment to the success of American agricultural industries and the national economy is rampant federal regulation and the associated cost of compliance. We have to allow U.S. agriculture to flow to markets around the world, so in addition to that regulatory reform--some of which we are undertaking now through resolutions of disapproval by peeling back the overreach of government, we have to allow farmers access to more markets. That is a concern we all should share: What is going to happen with our trade policy in this country? Because if we decide to shut off trade in this country, if we decide to close access and avenues to new markets, the first people who are going to be hurt are those farmers and ranchers in Colorado and Kansas and throughout the Midwest of the United States. We have to have the opportunity to be able to send that bushel of wheat to Asia, that bushel of corn around the globe to make sure we are providing value-added opportunities for the world's best farmers and ranchers. Opening up new markets for Colorado and American agriculture is a clear way we can support rural economies. Let's be clear. What I said at the beginning of these comments--there are farm communities that have diversity in their economic opportunities. A farm economy may not be 100 percent dependent on farms or ranches. Maybe they have tourism. Maybe they have some recreational opportunities. Maybe they are close to a big city where people can live there and commute. But there are a lot of towns across the United States that are solely, 100 percent committed to agriculture. They don't have access to anything but farming and ranching. When the price is down, the town is down. When the town is down, Main Street erodes. When Main Street erodes, it affects our schools and our hospitals and our relationships and our families. And somebody has to be looking out for our farmers and ranchers because the next American farm bust is upon us. We have to take the necessary steps to pass a farm bill that gets our policies right when the new one expires. The current one expires in 2016, and these discussions are just now underway. If we have regulatory reform, if we open up new trade opportunities for agriculture and we give farmers certainty--those are three things we can do to help address this crisis before it becomes a full-blown crisis. We have to make sure that we support our farmers and ranchers, that we have their backs in good times and in bad times. Giving farmers certainty through a farm bill, through a regulatory landscape that provides certainty and relief, is important. I talked to a family member of mine the other day who talks about his fear that he sees conditions similar to what we saw in the 1980s. The final relief we can provide is relief from financial regulations that are stifling the ability of banks to provide workout opportunities for farmers and ranchers when they need it. Four things we ought to be doing for our farmers and ranchers: provide them certainty, regulatory relief, new trade opportunities, and targeted financial relief on regulations that are preventing workouts through our banks and our communities. We have the opportunity now to prevent this country from seeing what it saw in the 1980s, but let's not be reactionary. Let's do what we can to get ahead of this before we start seeing what Secretary-designee Perdue told me the other day. One of the customers of his agricultural business took his life because he didn't know what was going to happen to his farm, and his three kids are now left wondering what they are going to do. I hope this country understands how supportive we are of American agriculture and the actions we need to take to stand with them when times get tough. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA stated that they caused this spill. Dozens upon dozens of individuals and businesses filed a claim against the EPA for damages caused by a spill that the EPA admits. Scott Pruitt has said that he will fulfill the promise of paying for those claims the Obama administration denied. Will the Senator agree that the EPA, under the last administration, failed to deliver on the promises made of paying these claims?

Mr. GARDNER. To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA admits they caused this spill. Does the Senator from Illinois realize that the EPA then failed to live up to that promise?

Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, whom I intend to support. Over the past several weeks, we heard a number of Senators come to the floor hour after hour, 24-hour sessions through the night--1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock--in the morning and beyond, to complain about this nominee or that nominee, to express their concern about this nominee or that nominee. In fact, many times I think the only reason there is opposition to a nominee is that they disagree with a nominee because it wasn't Hillary Clinton who made the nomination. We have heard countless people come to the floor today to talk about their opposition to the Trump administration EPA. I have a picture on the floor that shows the Obama EPA. This is a river in Colorado, enjoyed by thousands of people each and every summer. This is a picture of that same river under the Obama EPA. This was caused by 800,000 pounds of mineral and other waste going into the river because of a mishandled EPA project. This wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald Trump. This was the Obama EPA that did this. I only wish that my colleagues who have come to the floor for the past several hours had shown similar outrage when the Obama EPA did this to Colorado-- inflicted this kind of damage on people in Southwestern Colorado in the Gold King Mine spill. You want to talk about protecting States? Why didn't we stand up and protect this river? On August 5, 2015, the EPA caused this spill. They admit they caused this spill, dumping 3 million gallons of toxic waste into Cement Creek and into the Animas River. Most Americans remember seeing this river. Most Americans remember seeing pictures of what this river looked like across newspapers, across television stations in August of 2015. When I visited South Korea, the President of South Korea asked me: How is the river in Colorado that the EPA dumped toxic sludge into? In fact, I saw this picture on the news just a couple of days ago. Somebody was using it to complain about the Trump EPA administration. Somebody was using it to attack Scott Pruitt. This picture had nothing to do with Scott Pruitt. This was the EPA led by Gina McCarthy. My response to the spill was that the EPA should be held accountable to the same level at which the EPA holds private businesses accountable. I think that is a pretty good standard. But if the EPA is going to make sure that somebody lives up to a standard, then the EPA should live up to the same standard--that basic standard for the EPA, because the Agency caused this spill, and it simply must apply the same requirements to itself that it does to a private company. So it was with great disappointment, but very little surprise, that, when the EPA decided to not subject itself to those same standards, they walked away from the promises they made. Sure, the EPA had standards under Barack Obama. They were double standards. The Obama administration EPA's refusal to not receive and process the personal injury or economic loss claims arising out of this spill of the Gold King Mine in Southwest Colorado is appalling. I simply wish the outrage was there when the EPA walked away from the people that it had injured in Colorado. We haven't heard talk about it here. We have heard a lot of complaints here, but nobody is saying they should be paying for the damage in Colorado they created. After all, we are discussing the EPA, which with the strike of a pen, and oftentimes with very little input from those people who would be affected, uses overly burdensome regulations and a heavyhanded enforcement to punish private businesses. Despite the assurances and promises of the then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that the Agency takes full responsibility of the Gold King Mine spill, the Agency in 2017--weeks ago--turned its back on the promises it made and denied paying claims for the harm they caused Coloradans. Promises were broken to our neighbors downstream in New Mexico and Utah, including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation. Administrator McCarthy called me last month, just before the news broke that the EPA would not be processing the claims of dozens of individuals and businesses in Southwest Colorado under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the Federal Government. The spill occurred in August 2015. Over a year later, and in the waning days of the Obama administration, they turned their backs on their promises they made to Colorado and notified us in the waning hours of an administration saying: I am sorry. We are not going to help the individuals who are harmed. This refusal to compensate for the spill is unacceptable and wholly inconsistent with the EPA's commitment to take full responsibility with the States, local and tribal governments and communities. This past election, voters said they wanted something different from the last 8 years in Washington because what they experienced was not working for the people--broken promise after broken promise. A year and a half ago, the EPA caused the Gold King Mine spill, and the past administration refused to make it right for Colorado. The status quo at the EPA is not acceptable because broken promises are the status quo. I have had earnest conversations with Mr. Pruitt over the past several weeks about my sincere disappointment about those broken promises, what we had to go through in Colorado, and what businesses had to go through in Colorado as a result of the EPA spill. You can imagine that in an area that is reliant on tourism, what photographs of this in headlines across the country and in nightly news stories can do to a tourism-based economy. Those kayakers we saw in this chart had to shut the river down. Outfitters weren't allowed to be on the river. Dollars were lost because guides couldn't get out there. Booked trips that had already been paid for had been canceled. People didn't go because of the EPA's spill. The EPA's refusal to pay for lost property, lost economic opportunity, and lost business opportunity is simply unacceptable. In the earnest conversations I have had with Scott Pruitt, he has promised to make it right. He has promised to stand up for the people in Colorado. He has promised that he will make amends and pay for the damages that the Obama administration refused to pay for. He assured me that he is going to make it right, that he is going to work with the people the EPA injured and those who experienced economic losses and make sure that they are fully compensated. He agreed to come to Colorado shortly after his confirmation to make sure that the people of Colorado know that he will fulfill the promises that were failed under the Obama administration. I would also like to talk about another top legislative priority of mine--passing Good Samaritan legislation. Good Samaritan legislation would allow Good Samaritans, like the mining industry, State agencies, local governments, nonprofits, and other groups the ability to clean up the environment and improve water quality conditions around abandoned mines. According to the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, it is estimated that there are more than 160,000 abandoned hard-rock mines that exist across the United States, and at least 33,000 of these mines pose environmental or safety concerns. One of the immediate actions we can do in Congress to address this toxic waste and improve our environment is to pass Good Samaritan legislation. It has been decades that this Congress has tried. It has been decades that this Congress has failed. It is time to start succeeding and time to start cleaning up the environment. The last time the Environment and Public Works Committee was able to advance legislation on Good Samaritan was in 2006, from my predecessors, Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar. Unfortunately, since 2006, this concept has been unsuccessful and caught in partisan politics. It is time to take steps forward for facilitating cleanup of the Nation's abandoned mines to prevent more spills like the Gold King Mine. I have secured the commitment from Scott Pruitt to work with me on this legislation at the EPA to get this done, to work with both sides of the aisle to accomplish something, so that we can prevent this from happening. I am not going to stop working until our constituents are made whole from the EPA-caused spill at the Gold King Mine. I am not going to stop working until we pass--and we have to continue working to pass--the Good Samaritan legislation. The 33,000 mines that pose a risk to the West is unacceptable. Our citizens, our pristine environment, our waterways, our children--this wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald Trump. This was an EPA under the previous administration, led by Gina McCarthy and President Obama, that walked away from the people of Colorado and the promises made. And it heartens me greatly to know, at least, that we have an administration that will move away from every promise abandoned to fulfilling the promises of protecting our environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. If the Senator would yield, what the EPA has stated is admitting fault, admitting and promising that they would pay for those who were injured, and then just weeks ago, as the previous administration was ending, they denied every single one of the private claimants. The Senator has talked about Scott Pruitt at EPA. When I spoke with the Administrator-designate of EPA, Scott Pruitt said they would make the private claimants whole; that they would pay the Navajo Nation; that they would pay the claims made by outfitters who were shut down. Will the Senator help me make sure that the EPA stands up to its obligations and recognize that Scott Pruitt--at both the EPW confirmation hearing and to me--has committed that the EPA will do what they did not do; that is, to make our citizens whole?

Mr. GARDNER. I thank my colleague from the great State of Montana. During the debate on the floor just a while ago, we heard more debate on something that is very near and dear to my heart; that is, the matter of the Gold King Mine and the EPA's self-admitted responsibility on spilling 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River in Colorado. The debate around the floor and my comments this morning have centered on the EPA's admitted liability and fault in spilling millions of gallons of sludge into a river, promising they would make the claims, pay for the injury that occurred, and then denying those claims and walking away. Had the private sector been involved, my question to the Senator is this: If the private sector admitted guilt in spilling 3 million gallons of toxic waste into a river, would they be held accountable?

Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senators Schatz, Whitehouse, and Hirono, the Senate resume morning business and then stand adjourned under the previous order.