John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the past 8 years have been tough on Americans. Despite the fact that the recession officially ended in June of 2009, the economy never really rebounded. President Obama presided over the weakest economic recovery in 60 years. His Presidency was characterized by poor economic growth, a dearth of jobs and opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage increases. In 2016, the economy grew at a dismal 1.6 percent, far below the level of growth displayed by a healthy economy. Typically 3 to 3\1/2\ percent is the average, going back to World War II. The GDP report for the first quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the kind of pro-growth policies that were lacking during the Obama years. Republicans in Congress and the White House have already acted to repeal a number of burdensome Obama regulations that were foisted onto the American people near the end of his Presidency. We plan to keep up our efforts. Getting rid of unnecessary regulations will go a long way toward freeing up businesses to grow and create jobs and put more money in Americans pockets. Of course, repealing burdensome regulations is just one of the things we need to get our economy healthy again. Fixing our broken Tax Code is another. As a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I will be introducing tax reform legislation in the near future, targeted primarily for Main Street businesses that pay taxes at the individual rate. I am looking forward to working on comprehensive tax reform with Chairman Hatch and the rest of my colleagues on the Finance Committee as we move forward this year. It is critical that passthrough businesses, which are the main focus of my bill, are not left behind in this effort. Today, I want to talk about spurring growth in a specific sector of our economy, one that is very important to my home state; that is, the agricultural sector. Like so many other Americans, farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the country have had a rough time of it over the past few years. Market prices for farm and ranch products have been on a steady decline since 2013, and net farm income has dropped substantially as a result of that. Worse, there is little expectation that prices will improve over the next few years, which means farmers' and ranchers' incomes are likely to continue to decrease. Farmers are struggling to repay their debts. Between 2014 and 2016, the delinquency rates on farm non-real estate loans more than doubled. Delinquencies on farm real estate loans rose from $1.18 billion in 2014 to $1.66 billion in 2016. While these numbers are not all-time highs, the increases are disturbing and show no signs of reversing any time soon. Farming and ranching are not just careers in South Dakota; they are a way of life, one that connects communities and families to the land and one generation to the next. Nearly 3,000 South Dakota farm families have been honored as operating century farms, meaning the same family has operated at least 80 acres of that farm for 100 years or more. But in today's weak agricultural economy, many families are afraid they will be the ones to lose the farm or ranch that has been in their family for generations. That would be a loss not just for them but for our country. Few of us understand the sacrifices that go into this way of life. When we pick up a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread at the grocery store, we don't think of the farmer who rose long before the Sun and finished his day long after the Sun had set. Our country is made stronger by the hard work, fierce dedication, and unconquerable spirit of America's farmers. We need to make a concerted effort to help farmers meet the challenges they are facing right now so that America can continue to help feed the world and Americans can continue to have access to the home-grown products they depend upon. So how do we do that? One thing we can do that would immediately improve agricultural prices would be to quickly negotiate new bilateral trade agreements. Agriculture is heavily dependent upon trade, and in today's economic climate, we cannot afford to have our agricultural exports restricted by inadequate trade policies. U.S. farmers have lost ground internationally. Our current share of the global grain market is just 30 percent, down from 65 percent in the mid-1970s. We need to take steps to level the playing field for American farmers and ranchers so they can be more competitive internationally. I have encouraged the President to start by negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Japan. Japan is one of our most important trading partners, but U.S. farmers too often face hefty tariffs on the products they sell in Japan. U.S. negotiators made important progress toward reducing these barriers during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We need to build on the work they did and negotiate a bilateral agreement with Japan as soon as possible. This would benefit a wide variety of American producers, including South Dakota beef producers who currently face a massive 38.5-percent tariff on the beef they sell in Japan. Trade agreements would help tremendously, but there is more we need to do to ensure the long-term sustainability of production agriculture in the United States. Every 5 years, Congress has the opportunity to reset Federal farm policy when it passes the farm bill. The current farm bill expires in 2018, and it is not too early to start the drafting process for the next bill. I served on the Agriculture Committee in the House and now serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee under the strong leadership of my friend from Kansas, Chairmanship Pat Roberts. I will be working on my fourth farm bill, and I take this responsibility very seriously. I spend a lot of time talking to farmers and ranchers while I am back home in South Dakota, and I have been developing legislation based on the feedback they give me about Federal programs. I have already introduced two key proposals that I hope will be part of the final farm bill that we pass next year, and I will be introducing several more farm bill legislative proposals this year. All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years. But a lot of farmers have told me that they don't want to retire portions of their land for a decade or more. To address this, I am proposing a new program that would reduce operating costs by providing a modest rental payment and increasing crop insurance premium discounts. The program I am proposing, the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, would provide a new, short-term option for farmers that would allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years, instead of the 10 to 15 years required by CRP rules. This program would result in improved soil health and reduced crop insurance costs, and it would provide beneficial areas for wildlife while also improving the bottom line for participating farms. The other key proposal I have introduced would make a number of revisions and management improvements to the CRP program and other U.S. Department of Agriculture easement programs. CRP plays a very significant role in South Dakota's economy, as it provides a major portion of the habitat for the Chinese ringneck pheasant, which brings more than $250 million each year to my State's rural areas, towns, and cities. Unfortunately, farmers have spent years frustrated by some of the ways the Department of Agriculture has managed this program. We need to make sure that Federal farm programs don't discourage farmers and ranchers from participating, especially in times like these, when these programs are sorely needed to provide valuable safety net assistance and to help protect soil and water. My conservation program legislation addresses major concerns that farmers have with CRP and other USDA conservation programs by allowing commonsense use and management of land enrolled in these programs, which improves these programs for farmers and at the same time saves taxpayers' money. My legislation also expands the CRP acreage cap by 25 percent and uses historical acreage averages to make sure CRP will be available in States that have used it and that need it the most. Above all, the acres enrolled in CRP and other easement programs must be effectively used and managed to maximize their usefulness and effectiveness for land and water conservation and wildlife, and I will work to make that happen. In addition, both of my legislative proposals contain provisions to provide additional support to young, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, as well as to military veterans. We need to ensure that young and beginning farmers and ranchers and others have opportunities to succeed, especially now, when even seasoned farmers are struggling. Along with trade agreements and the farm bill, there are other things we can do to help farmers and ranchers and small businesses. This year, we plan to take up major reform of our broken, bloated Tax Code. Making sure that we consider the needs of farmers and ranchers during this debate will be one of my priorities. We can also help farmers and ranchers by removing burdensome government regulations that do little to help the environment but force farmers to spend untold hours and dollars on compliance. One example of this kind of burdensome regulation is the so-called waters of the United States rule, something with which every farmer and rancher is familiar. This EPA regulation improperly used the Clean Water Act to justify expanding the EPA's regulatory authority to waters like small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches. The rule specifically targeted the Prairie Pothole Region, which covers five States, including nearly all of eastern South Dakota. I am grateful that the President chose to protect farmers and ranchers by announcing a review of this rule in February of this year. We could further support American farmers by removing yet another unnecessary regulatory hurdle, and that is the Reid vapor pressure regulation, which restricts the sale of E15 fuel during the summer driving season. Providing a waiver for E15, as enjoyed by other fuels, is a bipartisan, no-cost way to roll back regulation and grant consumers real choice at the pumps, as well as to help our farmers. Our Nation and the world depend on American farmers and ranchers. We need to make sure they can sustain their operations and continue to efficiently feed America and the world. I look forward to continuing our work on tax, trade, regulatory, and farm bill policies that support farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and throughout our country. When agriculture does well, I would argue, our national economy does well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the distinguished career, service, and leadership of Augustana University president Rob Oliver. His 11 years of leadership as the 23rd president of Augustana University in Sioux Falls, SD, have highlighted his servant's heart, visionary attitude, and passion for higher education. As he prepares for this next chapter in life, I would like to honor Rob's dedication and efforts to not only continue the university's rich history of providing students with a quality, liberal arts education, but also for his commitment to ensuring future students are given the opportunity to advance their studies and given the foundation to live a life of purpose at Augustana University. President Oliver joined the university after being incredibly involved in the Sioux Falls financial, business, and philanthropic community. For many years, Rob pursued efforts to improve the economic vitality of the region and was also active as a board member and devoted volunteer for many organizations, including the board of trustees of then-Augustana College. Rob's presidential tenure occurred during a time of uncertainty for many colleges and universities across the country. With the rising costs of higher education, enrollment challenges, nationwide economic troubles, and a growing discourse regarding the value of a college degree, many traditional institutions were struggling to chart a sustainable path forward. However, through President Oliver's ability to inspire others, offer a strategic vision, and execute a thorough plan of action, he has responded to those difficulties and strengthened Augustana's mission to deliver a quality, well-rounded experience for students, faculty, and staff. Under Rob's direction, Augustana has attained a number of accomplishments. Many will point to the critical investments in the Froiland Science Complex and Mikkelsen Library and others will point to record-setting monetary support and vastly increased endowment and scholarship programs as remarkable accomplishments; yet it is also worthwhile to note the university's advancement of the Civitas honors program, new academic majors and curriculum, expanded undergraduate research, and an expansion of online offerings for undergraduate, graduate, and adult students. Additionally, the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Student Success Center were created to provide important strategic partnerships and vocational engagement. Knowing the university's ability to attract students also depends on factors and opportunities outside the scholastic realm. President Oliver's era of leadership also included growth in the performing and visual arts, study abroad programs, and the construction and renovation of first-class, athletic facilities such as Kirkeby-Over Stadium, Ronken Field, and other projects through unprecedented, charitable gifts. The university has already seen the fruits of Rob's diligent work. With enrollment at a 26-year high, scholarships and financial aid for 100 percent of its fulltime students, two NCAA national championships, a well-respected place among the Nation's top educational institutions, and additional projects already staged for the future, there is little doubt his 25 years as part of Augustana University, whether as a trustee, member of the faculty, or finally as president, President Oliver's outstanding legacy will leave an impact for many years to come. I wish Rob, his wife, Angela, and the entire family the very best as we celebrate his service to Augustana University and the people of South Dakota.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Alec DiFruscia. Alec hails from Tewksbury, MA, and is a senior at George Washington University. During his internship, Alec assisted the committee's press office. He is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his internship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alec for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Jack Kill. Jack hails from Houston, TX, and is a rising senior at Notre Dame University. While interning on the Commerce Committee, Jack assisted the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security Subcommittee. He is a dedicated worker who was committed to getting the most out of his internship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jack for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that applicable committees be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of the following resolutions en bloc: S. Res. 105, S. Res. 122, S. Res. 128, S. Res. 129, S. Res. 130, S. Res. 131, and S. Res. 133.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, where applicable, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 26; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Acosta nomination, with the time until 11:30 a.m. equally divided in the usual form; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Acosta nomination occur at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 141, submitted earlier today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 142, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is no surprise that the economy continues to be one of the top issues on the minds of Americans. The 8 years of the Obama administration were characterized by weak economic growth, a dearth of jobs and opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage growth. The Obama administration ushered in long-term economic stagnation. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years--a full percentage point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50 years. We cannot resign ourselves to that. Resigning ourselves to long-term growth of 1.9 percent would mean resigning ourselves to decades of fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced standard of living. Fortunately, there are a lot of things we can do to get our economy thriving again and to spur economic growth. A recent report from the Economic Innovation Group identified one important problem with our economy today, and that is a lack of what the EIG calls economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and die. In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and significantly outstrips the rate of business death, but that has not been the case in the United States lately. New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 2011, business death outstripped business birth, and while the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far from historical norms. The Economic Innovation Group notes that in 2012--which, by the way, was the economy's best year for business creation since the recession-- it still ``fell far short of its worst year prior to 2008.'' This is deeply concerning because new businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of innovation. When new businesses are not being created at a strong rate, workers face a whole host of problems. ``A less dynamic economy,'' the Economic Innovation Group notes, ``is one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation, slack wage growth, and rising inequality--exactly what we see today.'' Restoring economic dynamism would go a long way toward boosting economic growth and providing new jobs and opportunities for American workers. One big thing we can do to achieve this is to relieve the burden of excessive government regulations. Obviously, some government regulations are important and necessary, but too many others are unnecessary and do nothing but load businesses with compliance costs and paperwork hours. The more resources businesses spend on complying with regulations, the less they have available for growth and innovation. Excessive regulations also prevent many new businesses from ever getting off the ground. Small startups simply do not have the resources to hire individuals--let alone consultants and lawyers--to do the costly work of complying with scores of government regulations. Unfortunately, over the past 8 years, the Obama administration spent a lot of time on imposing burdensome and unnecessary regulations on American businesses. According to the American Action Forum, the Obama administration was responsible for implementing more than 675 major regulations that cost the economy more than $800 billion. Given those numbers, it is no surprise that the Obama economy left businesses with few resources to dedicate to growing and creating jobs or that new business creation seriously dropped off during the Obama administration. Since the new Congress began in January, Republicans in Congress and the President have been focused on repealing burdensome Obama-era regulations. So far, we have saved individuals and businesses approximately $67 billion and freed them from 56 million hours of paperwork. Eliminating burdensome regulations will continue to be a priority for both Republicans in Congress and for the White House. In addition to removing burdensome regulations, we need to focus on reforming our Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is strangling businesses, both large and small. Some corporations escape with paying very little in taxes, but others end up paying the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Meanwhile, small businesses and family farms face high tax rates, at times exceeding those paid by large corporations. Tax reform needs to address these obstacles to growth. We need to trim our excessive corporate tax rate to make U.S. businesses competitive in the global economy, and we need to reduce taxes for small businesses so that we do not choke off these sources of growth and innovation. Measures like allowing new businesses to deduct their startup costs and expense more of their investments in machinery and equipment would spur new business creation and help small businesses thrive. Our goal is to take up tax reform this year, and I am looking forward to that debate. Reforming our Tax Code will go a long way toward restoring dynamism to our economy and encouraging growth, job creation, and better wages. There are other growth-boosting measures we can take as well, like removing unnecessary barriers that restrict access to capital. Both new and existing businesses rely on capital to help them innovate and expand. The last 8 years were discouraging years for American workers, but the stagnation of the Obama years does not have to be the new normal. American workers and job creators are as dynamic and creative as ever; we just need to clear the obstacles from their paths. I look forward to working with my colleagues this year as we make putting our economy on the path to long-term health and vitality a top priority for the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 140, submitted earlier today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 months ago, the President nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court. This week, we will be voting on his confirmation. I want to say that I am grateful to my colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, for his leadership during this process and for getting this nomination to the floor. We are fortunate to have him as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have before us a supremely qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch has a distinguished resume. He is widely regarded as a brilliant and thoughtful jurist. Most importantly, however, he is known for his impartiality and his absolute commitment to the rule of law. Judge Gorsuch understands that the job of a judge is to apply the law as it is written--and here is the fundamental thing--even when he disagrees with it. ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge.'' Judge Gorsuch has said that more than once. Why? Because a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions based on something other than the law. That is a problem because there is no such thing as equal protection or equal justice when judges make decisions based on their personal feelings about a case instead of based upon the law. A judge's job is to apply the law as it is written, whether he likes the result or not. Judge Gorsuch understands this. A lot of people from across the political spectrum have spoken up in favor of Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and one thread that runs through their comments is their confidence that they can trust Judge Gorsuch to apply the law as it is written. Here is what Neal Katyal, an Acting Solicitor General for President Obama, had to say about Judge Gorsuch: I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. A former law partner and a friend of Judge Gorsuch's--a friend who describes himself as ``a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes''--had this to say about Judge Gorsuch: Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer and a judge embodies a reverence for our country's values and legal system. . . . I have no doubt that I will disagree with some decisions that Gorsuch might render as a Supreme Court justice. Yet, my hope is to have justices on the bench such as Gorsuch . . . who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor and who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as judges.'' Again, that is from a self-described ``longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes.'' During his years on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has had a number of law clerks. On February 14, every one of Judge Gorsuch's former clerks, except for two who are currently clerking at the Supreme Court, sent a letter on his nomination to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is what they had to say: Our political views span the spectrum . . . but we are united in our view that Judge Gorsuch is an extraordinary judge. . . . Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has devoted himself to the rule of law. . . . As law clerks who have worked at his side, we know that Judge Gorsuch never resolves a case by the light of his personal view of what the law should be. Nor does he ever bend the law to reach a particular result that he desires. For Judge Gorsuch, a judge's task is not to usurp the legislature's role; it is to find and apply the law as written. That conviction, rooted in his respect for the separation of powers, makes him an exemplary candidate to serve on the nation's highest court. Again, that is the unanimous opinion of 39 of Judge Gorsuch's former law clerks whose political views, in their own words, ``span the spectrum.'' E. Donald Elliott, an adjunct professor at Yale Law School, had this to say about Judge Gorsuch: Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy isn't mine . . . but among judicial conservatives, Judge Gorsuch is as good as it possibly gets. . . . Judge Gorsuch tries very hard to get the law right. He is not an ideologue, not the kind to always rule in favor of businesses or against the government. Instead, he follows the law as best he can wherever it might lead. I could go on. The voices raised in support of Judge Gorsuch are numerous. Unfortunately, no amount of testimony in favor of Judge Gorsuch seems to be enough for Democrats. Senate Democrats are apparently determined to oppose Judge Gorsuch despite the fact that they are struggling to find any good reason to justify their opposition. The Senate minority leader came down to the floor on March 23 to announce his determination to vote against Judge Gorsuch, and he urged his colleagues to do the same. Why? Well, apparently the Senate minority leader is not convinced that Judge Gorsuch ``would be a mainstream justice who could rule free from the biases of politics and ideology.'' That is right. Despite the fact that everyone--liberal and conservative--seems to describe fairness as one of Judge Gorsuch's distinguishing characteristics, the Senate minority leader is not convinced the judge will be able to rule without bias. He is worried that Judge Gorsuch won't be a mainstream judge. Well, over the course of 2,700 cases on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been in the majority 99 percent of the time--99 percent. In 97 percent of those 2,700 cases, those opinions were unanimous. I would like the minority leader to explain how exactly a judge who is in the majority 99 percent of the time is out of the judicial mainstream. Is the minority leader trying to suggest that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit, including the ones appointed by Democrats--which, I might add, is a majority on the circuit--are extremists? The fact is, Democrat opposition to Judge Gorsuch has nothing to do with his qualifications. Let's just get it out there. I doubt that any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really think that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream or that he lacks the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice. No, the truth is that Democrats are opposing Judge Gorsuch because they are mad that it is not a Democratic President making the nomination. They can't accept that they lost the election, so they are going to oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified. It is extremely disappointing that Democrats plan to upend a nearly 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority vote simply because they can't accept the results of an election. Democrats have no plausible reason to offer for opposing this supremely qualified nominee. I hope that a sufficient number of Senate Democrats will think better of their opposition and vote--when we have that opportunity later this week--to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today we are one step closer to a vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I look forward to the vote tomorrow. We will be confirming a Justice to the Supreme Court who is supremely qualified, who is a mainstream judge, who respects the rule of law and the Constitution, and who will rule impartially from the bench--someone who will call balls and strikes. That is what I believe the American people look for when they look for a Supreme Court Justice. While it was always clear that some Democrats would oppose any Supreme Court candidate the President nominated, I had hoped that partisanship would be at least somewhat limited. I had hoped the Democrats would want to preserve the Senate's nearly 230-year tradition in confirming Supreme Court Justices by a simple-majority vote. And I had hoped that more than a handful of Democrats would join us to confirm one of the most, as I said, supremely qualified judges in my memory. That is not what happened. Despite Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, despite the support for his nomination from both liberals and conservatives, the vast majority of Senate Democrats were determined to block this confirmation. Of course, it wasn't really ever about Judge Gorsuch. It is not that Democrats were determined to block his confirmation; it is that they were determined to block any confirmation. Democrats tried to offer reasons to oppose Judge Gorsuch, but they struggled to come up with anything plausible. The Senate minority leader actually came to the floor and tried to argue that he was worried that Judge Gorsuch would not be ``a mainstream justice.'' Over the course of 2,700 cases on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been in the majority 99 percent of the time--99 percent. In 97 percent of those 2,700 cases, the opinions were unanimous. So I would love to hear an explanation for how exactly a judge who has been in the majority 99 percent of the time is out of the judicial mainstream. Was the minority leader attempting to argue that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit, including those appointed by Democratic Presidents, are out of the mainstream? The fact is that Democratic opposition to Judge Gorsuch had nothing to do with his qualifications. I doubt that any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really think that Judge Gorsuch is out of the mainstream or that he lacks the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice, but they opposed him anyway. If they opposed a judge with a distinguished resume and a reputation as a brilliant jurist; if they opposed a judge who is known for his fairness and impartiality; if they opposed a judge whose nomination has been repeatedly supported by liberals, as well as conservatives; if they opposed a judge who unanimously received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association--a rating, I might add, that the minority leader once called the ``gold standard'' for judicial nominees; if they opposed a judge a number of them supported 10 years ago, then it is abundantly clear that their opposition wasn't about this judge but about any judge this President nominates. Thus, Republicans were left with no real alternative but to act to preserve the Senate's tradition of giving Supreme Court nominees an up-or-down vote. This wasn't my preference. I preferred to leave room for a minority to block a judge who is truly not fit for office. But it was the only alternative we were left with if we wanted to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court. Historically, confirming judges was not a partisan process. During the George W. Bush administration, however, Democrats decided they were going to change that. They were mad back then too--mad that a Republican President was in charge. Apparently, modern-day Democrats are not reconciled to the fact that in our system of government, it is not always the Democrats who win. Anyway, the Democrats were mad, and they decided that the historically bipartisan process of confirming judicial nominees was going to change. Their 2003 filibuster of Miguel Estrada, who had been nominated to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, was the first time a judicial nominee who enjoyed clear majority support was not confirmed because of a filibuster. Democrats ultimately successfully filibustered no fewer than 10 Bush nominees to appellate courts. That was a massive reversal in Senate history. Suddenly the normally smooth process of confirming a President's judicial nominee had been turned into an exercise in partisanship. Ten years later, Democrats struck again when they employed the nuclear option to ensure that they could pack the DC Circuit--despite the fact that at the time, when the current minority leader announced that Democrats would ``fill up the D.C. Circuit one way or the other,'' Republicans had blocked just two of President Obama's circuit nominees and had confirmed 99 percent of his judges. So 215 were confirmed out of 217 under President Obama up to that point. And now here we are today. Democrats are again mad that they lost an election, that they can't control the nomination process, and they once again turned to ``no-holds-barred'' partisanship. They made it clear that no Republican nominee would ever make it to the Supreme Court; thus, we had to act to ensure that Supreme Court nominees can receive an up-or-down vote going forward. In the Senate's nearly 230 years, the filibuster has been used to block a Supreme Court nominee exactly once--one time. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was blocked by a bipartisan coalition, in part over ethical concerns. That is how strong the Senate's bipartisan tradition of an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominees has been--230 years, one time, and it was bipartisan. I am deeply sorry that the Democrats were determined to end that tradition. Judge Gorsuch should never have faced the threat of a filibuster. There was no reason--no reason other than the most flagrant partisan politics--to block this supremely qualified nominee from the Supreme Court. As I said, I look forward to tomorrow and to this final vote where we will have an opportunity to confirm to the Supreme Court this well- qualified, mainstream nominee who fundamentally respects the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States and will act impartially as a Justice for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. Everything we heard from this nominee confirmed what has been clear from the beginning: Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge all of us should want on the Nation's highest Court. Judge Gorsuch obviously has a distinguished resume. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and went on to receive a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall scholar. He clerked for two Supreme Court Justices--Byron White and Anthony Kennedy--and he worked in both private practice and at the Justice Department before being nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has served with distinction for 10 years. He is widely regarded as a brilliant and thoughtful jurist and a gifted writer whose opinions are known for their clarity. Most importantly, however, Judge Gorsuch understands the proper role of a judge, and that role is to interpret the law, not make the law; to judge, not legislate; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the rules of the game. It is great to have strong opinions. It is great to have sympathy for causes or organizations. It is great to have plans for fixing society's problems, but none of those things has any business influencing your ruling when you sit on the bench. Your job as a judge is to apply the law as it is written--and here is the fundamental thing--even when you disagree with it. ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge,'' Judge Gorsuch said more than once. Why? Because a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions based on something other than the law. That is a problem. Equal justice under the law, equal protection under the law--these principles become meaningless when judges step outside of their role and start changing the meaning of the law to suit their feelings about a case or their personal opinions. Judge Gorsuch's nomination has attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum. I think the main reason for that is because both liberals and conservatives know they can trust Judge Gorsuch to rule based on the plain text of the law, irrespective of his personal opinions. Here is what Neal Katyal, an Acting Solicitor General for President Obama, had to say about Judge Gorsuch: I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him. The Colorado Springs Gazette recently highlighted a letter signed by 96 prominent Colorado lawyers and judges and sent to the senior Senator from Colorado. Here is what those individuals had to say about Judge Gorsuch: 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. We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of utmost character. He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a judge and a person. His record shows that he believes strongly in the independence of the judiciary. A former law partner and friend of Judge Gorsuch--a friend who describes himself as ``a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes''--had this to say about the judge: Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer and a judge embodies a reverence for our country's values and legal system. The facts developed in a case matter to him; the legal rules established by legislatures and through precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is deeply engrained in him. . . . I have no doubt that I will disagree with some decisions that Gorsuch might render as a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, my hope is to have Justices on the bench such as Gorsuch . . . who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor, and who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as judges. Again, that is from a self-described ``longtime supporter of Democratic candidates and progressive causes.'' During his years on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has had a number of law clerks. On February 14, every one of Judge Gorsuch's former clerks, except for two currently clerking at the Supreme Court, sent a letter on his nomination to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is what they had to say: Our political views span the spectrum . . . but we are united in our view that Judge Gorsuch is an extraordinary judge. . . . Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has devoted himself to the rule of law. He believes firmly that the role of the judge in our democracy is to apply the laws made by the political branches--that is, to adhere to our Constitution and statutes our elected representatives have enacted, and not to confuse those things with a judge's own policy preferences. As law clerks who have worked at his side, we know that Judge Gorsuch never resolves a case by the light of his personal view of what the law should be. Nor does he ever bend the law to reach a particular result he desires. For Judge Gorsuch, a judge's task is not to usurp the legislature's role; it is to find and apply the law as written. That conviction, rooted in his respect for the separation of powers, makes him an exemplary candidate to serve on the nation's highest court. That is the unanimous opinion of 39 of Judge Gorsuch's former law clerks, whose political views in their own words ``span the spectrum.'' Unfortunately, no amount of testimony in favor of Judge Gorsuch will ever be enough for some Senate Democrats. The Senate minority leader took to the floor last week to announce a determination to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination. He also announced his determination to push for a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's nomination. The minority leader's reasons? Well, for starters, the minority leader apparently doesn't trust that Judge Gorsuch will use the bench to implement the leader's preferred policies. He disagrees with some of Judge Gorsuch's decisions, and he apparently considers that sufficient grounds to bar Judge Gorsuch from the Supreme Court. The minority leader demonstrated little interest in whether Judge Gorsuch's legal interpretations were correct. For the minority leader, judging is about getting one's preferred outcome, irrespective of what the law actually says. The minority leader also mentioned another reason for opposing Judge Gorsuch: He doesn't trust the judge to be independent or impartial, even though liberals and conservatives alike have praised Judge Gorsuch's independence and impartiality as two of his defining characteristics. The minority leader also made the laughable claim that Judge Gorsuch is somehow out of the judicial mainstream. Well, let me quote what the Wall Street Journal said on this subject. In February, the Journal wrote: Judge Gorsuch has written some 800 opinions since joining the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Only 1.75 percent (14 opinions) [out of 800] drew dissent from his colleagues. That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans. Let me repeat that last line: ``That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.'' Well, I wonder if the minority leader intended to suggest that the entire Tenth Circuit is composed of extremist judges or that all of the judges on the Tenth Circuit lacked impartiality or independence, because, logically speaking, if you are going to suggest that Judge Gorsuch is an extremist, then you would have to argue that his colleagues who agreed with his opinions 98 percent of the time are extremists too. The truth is, Democrat opposition to Judge Gorsuch has zero to do with whether Judge Gorsuch meets the qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice. It is obvious that the judge has all the qualifications one could want in a Justice. Democrats are opposing Judge Gorsuch because they are mad. They are mad that their party didn't win the Presidential election, they are mad that their party doesn't have control of Congress, and they are mad that they are having to consider a judge nominated by a Republican President. It doesn't matter how qualified Judge Gorsuch is, how impartial he is, how independent he is, some Democrats are just going to oppose him anyway. This isn't the first time Judge Gorsuch has been before this body. Back in 2006, the Senate considered Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Tenth Circuit. At that time, the judge's nomination sailed through the Senate. Both of his home State Senators--one a Republican and one a Democrat--supported his nomination, and he was confirmed by unanimous vote. Then-Senator Obama could have objected to the nomination, but he didn't. The current minority leader, who was serving in the Senate at that time, could have objected to the nomination, but he didn't. Senators Biden or Clinton could have objected to the nomination, but they didn't. Why? Presumably because they saw what almost everybody sees today: that Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of judge we want on the bench--supremely qualified, thoughtful, fair, and impartial. It is incredibly disappointing that some Democrats are now planning to oppose this eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee simply because they can't deal with losing an election. The Senate has a 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority vote. There has never been a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in 230 years, and the only ones who have ever attempted one are the Democrats. Well, some Democrats may follow the minority leader in opposing Judge Gorsuch. I am hopeful that others will listen to the many voices, liberal and conservative, speaking out in support of his nomination. There is no good reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch, and there is every reason to support him. It is time to confirm the supremely qualified judge to the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor. (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 23; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that the Senate resume consideration of S.J. Res. 34.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the internet has grown at an unbounded rate in the years since its inception, a phenomenon no one can argue with. Much of that growth can be attributed to the light-touch regulatory approach that the government adopted in the early days of the web. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the internet, I have worked hard to promote policies that encourage the private sector to invest in and grow the internet ecosystem as a whole. All of that is jeopardized, however, if government bureaucrats have the ability to overregulate the digital world. When it comes to overregulating the internet, one need look no further than the Democratic-controlled Federal Communications Commission under President Obama. In a world that was turning away--it was literally turning away from the legacy telecommunication services and, instead, toward dynamic internet applications, the FCC found its role gradually diminishing. This is an inevitable and good byproduct, I might add, of a more competitive environment brought about by technological innovation and successful light-touch policies. Yet the Obama FCC fought hard against this technological progress and, instead, pursued an aggressively activist and partisan agenda that put government edicts ahead of real consumer desires. Over the last 2 years, the FCC has made a stunning bureaucratic power grab. First, the FCC stripped away the Federal Trade Commission's authority to police internet providers and seized that for itself by recharacterizing such services as monopoly-era telecommunications. Then in 2016, the FCC, which has little experience regulating internet privacy, decided to turn our country's privacy laws on their head by abandoning the time-tested enforcement approach of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. These actions by the FCC ignored both common sense and real world data and, instead, focused on hypothetical harms of the future. Ignoring years of internet ecosystem precedent, where everyone was treated the same, the FCC's 2016 broadband privacy regulations would apply only to certain parts of the internet. This is a source of significant concern because at any particular time, consumers will not have reasonable certainty of what the rules are and how their privacy decisions will be applied. Are you at home on Wi-Fi? At home on a smartphone? Using your smartphone on a friend's Wi-Fi? Using the Internet at a library? Each of these could have very different privacy implications for a consumer because of the FCC's piecemeal approach to privacy, leading to more confusion and uncertainty, not increased privacy protections, as promised. In enacting these lopsided rules, the FCC seems to have gone out of its way to disregard established FTC practice by creating new regulations that differ significantly from the FTC's tried-and-true framework. The FTC's privacy regime is clear, easy to understand, and applies evenly throughout the marketplace. By contrast, the FCC's rules are complex, confusing, and often lead to the same data being treated inconsistently online. The FCC's action would harm consumers in other ways as well. Even though no consumer wants to be in the dark about newer and cheaper services, the FCC's rules actually make it more difficult for customers to hear about new, innovative offerings from their broadband providers. And because the FCC imposed heavy-handed data requirements on these internet companies, they will have less ability to offer services that are tailored to their customers' needs and interests. Furthermore, the FCC unfairly distorted the marketplace when it imposed unnecessarily onerous privacy restrictions on broadband providers while leaving the rest of the internet under the strong and successful regime at the FTC. When speaking about the economic opportunities the internet now affords us, President Obama's last FCC chairman declared that ``government is where we will work this out.'' ``Government is where we will work this out.'' Well, I couldn't disagree more. I believe the marketplace should be the center of the debate over how our digital networks would function, not the FCC. I believe consumers and job creators should be the ones deciding about new technologies, not the government. The resolution before us today is the first step toward restoring regulatory balance to the internet ecosystem. The best way for that balance to be achieved is for there to be a single, uniform set of privacy rules for the internet--the entire internet--rules that appropriately weigh the need to protect consumers with the need to foster economic growth and continued online innovation. The FCC is simply the wrong venue for that effort. Its statutory scope is too narrow, and it lacks institutional expertise on privacy. The current chairmen of the FCC and the FTC both recognize this, having jointly called for returning jurisdiction over broadband providers' privacy and data security practices to the FTC ``so that all entities in the online space can be subject to the same rules.'' For those reasons, I support the resolution before us that would provide congressional disapproval of the Obama administration's misguided and unfair attempts to regulate the internet, and I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution as well. To those people who have heard that this resolution somehow results in the elimination of all online protections for consumers, I can assure you those claims are simply unfounded scaremongering. If this resolution is enacted, it will repeal only a specific rulemaking at the FCC that has yet to be implemented. What we are talking about here hasn't even been implemented yet. It will not touch the FCC's underlying statutory authority. Indeed, the FCC will still be obligated to police the privacy practices of broadband providers, as provided for in the Communications Act. The new chairman of the FCC confirmed this when he appeared before the Commerce Committee earlier this month. No matter what happens with this resolution, the FTC will continue to have its authority to police the rest of the online world. It is my hope that once the Senate passes this resolution, the House will move quickly to take it up and send it to the President for his signature because, before our country can get back on the right track, we must first move past the damaging regulations adopted in the waning days of the Obama administration. I thank Senator Flake for his leadership on this issue. Without his tireless efforts, we would not be here today, standing ready to move decisively toward a better future for the internet. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow at noon.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Schatz and Markey.