John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Bethany for her hard work as an intern at the Senate Republican Policy Committee. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Bethany is a native of Casper. She is a student at Casper College, where she is studying business administration. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Bethany for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jack for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jack is a native of Story. He is a freshman at Loyola Marymount University, where he is studying international relations and Spanish. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Jack for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Isabelle for her hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Isabelle is a native of Colorado. She is a student at Southern Methodist University, where she is majoring in political science, corporate communication, and public affairs. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Isabelle for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her next journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mike for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Mike is a native of Savery. He is a junior at the University of Wyoming, where he is studying environmental systems science, biology, and chemistry. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Mike for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Nate for his hard work as an intern in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Nate is a native of Illinois. He is a student at Northern Illinois University, where he is majoring in political science and communications. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Nate for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, President Trump was in Europe meeting with other NATO leaders. One of the major issues he raised was the need to bolster energy security throughout NATO. He specifically talked about a natural gas pipeline that the Russians are building between Russia and Germany. It is called the Nord Stream II Pipeline. I have been talking about this pipeline for years. President Trump was absolutely right to bring up this important subject. Here is how the Boston Herald put it in an editorial over the weekend: ``Trump's testy, tough talk to NATO on point.'' They say the President's tough talk was absolutely on point. The President pointed out that Germany relies on natural gas for a substantial amount of its energy needs. More than half of Germany's natural gas imports come from Russia. With this new pipeline, Germany will actually increase its dependence on Russian gas. Russia will have more of an influence on Germany. Germany and other countries are members of NATO, and the reason they are members of NATO is to protect themselves against Russian aggression. So if you are Germany, why would you want to become more dependent on Russia when you joined NATO and have been a member of NATO for years to protect against Russia aggression? It seems that Germany has turned around now and given Russia influence over its energy security. President Trump pointed out how strange it seems. I think it seems strange to other members of NATO, and it seems strange to people all across the country. No one who understands the facts can say that President Trump is wrong. President Trump is right. His tough talk to NATO was on point. Even the Obama administration knew it. The rest of NATO knows it. Even Germany knows it. When one country allows another aggressive, opportunistic country like Russia to have that kind of influence over its energy security, I believe it is asking for trouble. Germany seems to be betting that increasing its economic ties to the Kremlin will have no effect on the political manipulations that Russia wants to play on Europe. I think it is a sucker's bet. Energy security is national security. Energy security is called the master resource for a reason. It powers our country. It powers our economy. It is an instrument of power. It is a force multiplier. It is important for the United States and our allies around the world to have that correct understanding of energy and the impact that it has globally as a geopolitical weapon. We have seen Russia in the past use its natural gas as a geopolitical weapon. Russia threatens other countries. It extorts money from them. It bullies them. Russians then can tell their customers: Do what we say, or we turn off the tap and we shut off your gas. They have done it in the past. It also means a lot of money going from our NATO allies straight into the Kremlin's pocket. That is money they could be using instead to fund aggression in Europe and other parts of the world. That is what Russia wants to do with the money, if they get that money from Germany, from the energy. They use the money against us and against our NATO allies. This new pipeline, I believe, was all the desire of the Russian people--and specifically of Vladimir Putin--to put our NATO allies much more under Russia's control. With the new pipeline, Russia is seeking to make Germany and the rest of Europe even more dependent and even more susceptible to this kind of Russian coercion. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on the subject last week. They wrote that ``the embarrassment for Berlin and NATO is that Germany is so happy to help Vladimir Putin execute this plan.'' That is the embarrassment for Berlin and the embarrassment for NATO. They said: ``Usually hostages need to be taken, instead of volunteering.'' But that is what Germany is doing right now--volunteering to be Russia's hostage. That is exactly right. Europe needs new energy, new energy security, and a new energy source. They need diversity. That is what the European Union needs. They need diversity in both the types of energy--that is what our NATO allies need--diversity in the types of energy that they use and where they get their energy from. That is how countries ensure that their own long-term economic health and independence is sound. Russia has a right to compete in the world market for energy. The trouble starts when Russia gets so much of the market in some of these European countries that they become a monopoly in terms of the way they act. Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe. Across Europe, nearly 40 percent of the natural gas imports come from Russia. So Russia has incredible control. In some countries, it is virtually 100 percent. Countries like Germany should be reducing the amount of natural gas they buy from Russia, not increasing it, but that is what this Nord Stream II Pipeline between Russia and Germany does. It increases the amount of natural gas Germany will be buying from Russia. Germany should absolutely reject the Nord Stream II Pipeline as part of their reduction of dependence on Russia. That would help shrink the influence and the threat Russia continually poses to our NATO allies. It would also help our other allies in the region because, right now, a lot of Russian gas travels through pipelines that cross Ukraine and other countries into Central Europe. These countries make money from the gas crossing their territory, and they get a lot of their energy through these pipelines as well. But remember, Russia has invaded parts of eastern Ukraine. Russia has taken over Crimea. If Russia has their other new pipeline to help export its natural gas, it can shut off the revenue for countries, such as Ukraine, and shut off their energy completely. Remember, one of the things President Trump has done, which I think has been helpful and which I had been calling for for years during the Obama administration, is actually provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to deal with the incursions coming from Russia to eastern Ukraine. Vladimir Putin actually cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006, 2009, and 2014. He invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in part to cut off access to the natural gas and oil resources. This is a pattern Vladimir Putin has of using energy as a weapon, and the best defense against this weapon is for these countries in Europe to have the kind of energy diversity and energy security that I have recommended. In March, I wrote a letter to the Treasury and State Departments encouraging the Trump administration to look at ways to stop the construction of the Nord Stream II Pipeline. That is what we need to do--stop the construction of the pipeline. It was a bipartisan effort, and 39 Senators from both parties signed on to the letter to express our concerns to President Trump about what was happening between Russia and Germany. Today, I take the next concrete step and introduce legislation to do four very important things. First, the legislation directs our representatives in NATO to work to achieve energy security for our partners throughout Europe and Eurasia. Second, it calls for a comprehensive strategy that involves increasing American energy exports to these countries being held hostage by Russia. Third, it requires the Energy Secretary to speed up approvals of American natural gas exports to our NATO allies and other countries. Finally, it authorizes mandatory U.S. sanctions on the development of Russian energy pipelines like Nord Stream II. It is in the national security interests of our country to help our allies reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Where those countries don't see it for themselves, we need to show them how important it is for their own security. Our NATO alliance is strong. A robust energy security strategy will make it even stronger. When Vladimir Putin looks at natural gas, he doesn't think natural gas; he thinks politics, he thinks money, and he thinks power, because that is how he equates the energy he supplies to these countries, on which they have become so dependent--money, power, politics. Germany and other countries in Europe and NATO should be doing all they can to diversify their sources of energy so they can help reduce the threat Russia poses to them. The United States should do all we can by exporting our abundant natural gas to our allies as quickly as possible. We have more than enough natural gas to meet our own needs and to export to our friends around the world. We can boost the security of our NATO allies and our friends around the world, and we should be doing it. We can do it through a peaceful process and a peaceful means without spending tax dollars, while at the same time growing our American economy with the production of American energy. When President Trump came to office, he said: It is no longer about energy security or energy independence; it is about energy dominance. Given what we have been blessed with in this country and the amount of energy and resources we have, we have an opportunity and, I believe, an obligation to use that energy wisely and productively. Vladimir Putin thinks about energy as money, as power, and as politics, and I think that what we need to do with the resources we have, as I am introducing in this legislation today, is a very commonsense approach.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. People have begun looking over his extensive record, and he has been getting rave reviews around the country. Just look at a few of the headlines we have seen across the country. The New York Times, July 10: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise for his intellect and civility.'' The New York Times--it is astonishing. The Wall Street Journal said: ``Trump's nominee will be an intellectual leader on the bench.'' The Detroit News said his record suggests that ``he will maintain a commitment to interpreting the law as it is written, and not how he may wish it had been crafted.'' That is exactly what Americans should be looking for in a Supreme Court Justice because a judge's job is to apply the law, not to rewrite it. People looking at Judge Kavanaugh's record and reaching the conclusion that he knows the right way to approach this very important job. It is not just newspapers that are saying wonderful things and singing the praise of Judge Kavanaugh; legal scholars are lining up to commend his independence and his wisdom as a judge. Some of them are extremely liberal people he has worked with over the years. They just respect him that much as a judge who they find has been devoted to the law and the Constitution. Imagine that. That is what we should expect in anybody who serves as a Justice on the Supreme Court. A law professor from Yale wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last week titled ``A liberal's case for Brett Kavanaugh.'' The professor called Judge Kavanaugh ``a superb nominee'' and said that ``it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.'' Another liberal law professor called him a ``highly qualified mainstream conservative judge.'' He cited Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning as ``an example of the judging ideal, setting aside ideology and party politics, and just trying to get the law right.'' That is a liberal former law professor. He said Judge Kavanaugh gives ``an independent judiciary the job it is supposed to do: Interpret the law.'' There are lawyers who have appeared before Judge Kavanaugh who said the same things. I am not a lawyer, I haven't done these sorts of things, but I understand there are surveys of lawyers who appear before judges in court, people who have won cases and people who have lost cases. They put up their ideas about what they thought about the judge afterward. Across the board, they called him ``an excellent judge.'' They said that he ``has a history of excellent legal argument and analysis,'' someone who can think intellectually, think clearly, and come up with a legal argument and analysis to make the assessment, to apply the law as written. One lawyer actually said: ``It is daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower.'' This was an anonymous survey of lawyers who appear before Judge Kavanaugh. I don't know if they won or lost, but people get to put in their opinions, winners and losers, after cases in anonymous surveys. ``It is daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower.'' This wasn't people just trying to kiss up to the judge to win favor in a case; these are results from people after the case who were just telling it like it is. ``Excellent legal judgment,'' they say. If you look beyond the courtroom, people are just as willing to talk about Judge Kavanaugh's character as a person, not just a judge. That is part of it--to look at somebody's legal philosophy, their intellect, and their character--when trying to assess a judge who has been nominated, to say: Is this person the right person to be a Justice on the Supreme Court? The Washington Post even ran a piece by a woman who knows Judge Kavanaugh because he coaches her daughter's basketball team. She wrote that she was impressed by ``his traits of personal kindness, leadership, and willingness to help when called on.'' There are three things I look for in a nominee for the Supreme Court: judicial philosophy, a strong intellect, and a solid character. What we are hearing is overwhelming evidence from people who know him that Judge Kavanaugh has all of these qualities. He is someone who takes the law and the Constitution at face value. The Constitution is a legal document, not a living document, and it was built for certainty. He knows that a judge's job is to ``interpret the law,'' not to legislate from the bench, ``not to make the law or make policy.'' That is what he actually said in a speech last year. He has an extremely strong intellect, and I can't imagine there is anyone out there who can deny that. ``It is daunting and humbling to be in front of that brainpower''--this is what one of the lawyers who appeared before him said. And he is a person of solid character. That is what we are hearing from people who have known him over the years from being extremely active in the community. The New York Times summarized it: ``A conservative stalwart wins praise for his intellect and civility.'' So what is there for Democrats to come to the floor and object to? Why are they objecting to all of this? Why are some Democrats already saying they oppose a judge known for his intellect and civility? They were actually saying it before he was even named by President Trump. Whomever President Trump names, they are going to vote no. It is astonishing to see Democrats making that decision. Then they are asking for reams and reams of documents after they have already said they are against Judge Kavanaugh. What are they looking for? It is amazing. That is what I believe the big difference is between Republicans and Democrats in Washington: Republican Presidents choose judges and justices to follow the law; Democratic Presidents seem to pick judges and justices who are guaranteed to push liberal policies and liberal agendas, preconceived notions of how they should rule on a case before they hear the facts. They know the way they are going to go, maybe using things like emotion, sympathy, and empathy. The Constitution is a legal document. Even though you have legal experts from around the political world and around the spectrum of all sides of the aisle who praise his intellect and civility, it is not good enough for the liberal activists in this country. They don't even want to consider Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications, and they have said it here on the floor of the Senate and on television, if you listen. They are already making opposition to his nomination a liberal litmus test for Democrats in this Senate, and I am sorry to say that more than a few Democrats seem to be playing along. We have seen Democrats in the Senate who have already said that they don't care about Judge Kavanaugh's intellect; they don't care that he is ``just trying to get the law right''; they don't care that, as one lawyer said, ``it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.'' When you have someone with these qualifications, Senators ought to be looking at his record. They should look at the 300 decisions he has written in 12 years on the bench. It is absolutely the right thing to look at. They should meet him and talk with him. We have just begun this confirmation hearing process. I hope that more Democrats in the Senate will have an open mind about this nominee. I hope they will consider the kind of person we should have on the Supreme Court and then make their decisions about whether Judge Kavanaugh has those qualities. From what I have seen, he absolutely does. I plan to continue to look into his record and listen to people who know him best. I plan to sit down and talk with him. Everything I have seen so far tells me that this is someone who is exactly the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week, President Trump was in Europe meeting with other NATO leaders. One of the major issues he raised was the need to bolster energy security throughout NATO. He specifically talked about a natural gas pipeline that the Russians are building between Russia and Germany. It is called the Nord Stream II Pipeline. I have been talking about this pipeline for years. President Trump was absolutely right to bring up this important subject. Here is how the Boston Herald put it in an editorial over the weekend: ``Trump's testy, tough talk to NATO on point.'' They say the President's tough talk was absolutely on point. The President pointed out that Germany relies on natural gas for a substantial amount of its energy needs. More than half of Germany's natural gas imports come from Russia. With this new pipeline, Germany will actually increase its dependence on Russian gas. Russia will have more of an influence on Germany. Germany and other countries are members of NATO, and the reason they are members of NATO is to protect themselves against Russian aggression. So if you are Germany, why would you want to become more dependent on Russia when you joined NATO and have been a member of NATO for years to protect against Russia aggression? It seems that Germany has turned around now and given Russia influence over its energy security. President Trump pointed out how strange it seems. I think it seems strange to other members of NATO, and it seems strange to people all across the country. No one who understands the facts can say that President Trump is wrong. President Trump is right. His tough talk to NATO was on point. Even the Obama administration knew it. The rest of NATO knows it. Even Germany knows it. When one country allows another aggressive, opportunistic country like Russia to have that kind of influence over its energy security, I believe it is asking for trouble. Germany seems to be betting that increasing its economic ties to the Kremlin will have no effect on the political manipulations that Russia wants to play on Europe. I think it is a sucker's bet. Energy security is national security. Energy security is called the master resource for a reason. It powers our country. It powers our economy. It is an instrument of power. It is a force multiplier. It is important for the United States and our allies around the world to have that correct understanding of energy and the impact that it has globally as a geopolitical weapon. We have seen Russia in the past use its natural gas as a geopolitical weapon. Russia threatens other countries. It extorts money from them. It bullies them. Russians then can tell their customers: Do what we say, or we turn off the tap and we shut off your gas. They have done it in the past. It also means a lot of money going from our NATO allies straight into the Kremlin's pocket. That is money they could be using instead to fund aggression in Europe and other parts of the world. That is what Russia wants to do with the money, if they get that money from Germany, from the energy. They use the money against us and against our NATO allies. This new pipeline, I believe, was all the desire of the Russian people--and specifically of Vladimir Putin--to put our NATO allies much more under Russia's control. With the new pipeline, Russia is seeking to make Germany and the rest of Europe even more dependent and even more susceptible to this kind of Russian coercion. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on the subject last week. They wrote that ``the embarrassment for Berlin and NATO is that Germany is so happy to help Vladimir Putin execute this plan.'' That is the embarrassment for Berlin and the embarrassment for NATO. They said: ``Usually hostages need to be taken, instead of volunteering.'' But that is what Germany is doing right now--volunteering to be Russia's hostage. That is exactly right. Europe needs new energy, new energy security, and a new energy source. They need diversity. That is what the European Union needs. They need diversity in both the types of energy--that is what our NATO allies need--diversity in the types of energy that they use and where they get their energy from. That is how countries ensure that their own long-term economic health and independence is sound. Russia has a right to compete in the world market for energy. The trouble starts when Russia gets so much of the market in some of these European countries that they become a monopoly in terms of the way they act. Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe. Across Europe, nearly 40 percent of the natural gas imports come from Russia. So Russia has incredible control. In some countries, it is virtually 100 percent. Countries like Germany should be reducing the amount of natural gas they buy from Russia, not increasing it, but that is what this Nord Stream II Pipeline between Russia and Germany does. It increases the amount of natural gas Germany will be buying from Russia. Germany should absolutely reject the Nord Stream II Pipeline as part of their reduction of dependence on Russia. That would help shrink the influence and the threat Russia continually poses to our NATO allies. It would also help our other allies in the region because, right now, a lot of Russian gas travels through pipelines that cross Ukraine and other countries into Central Europe. These countries make money from the gas crossing their territory, and they get a lot of their energy through these pipelines as well. But remember, Russia has invaded parts of eastern Ukraine. Russia has taken over Crimea. If Russia has their other new pipeline to help export its natural gas, it can shut off the revenue for countries, such as Ukraine, and shut off their energy completely. Remember, one of the things President Trump has done, which I think has been helpful and which I had been calling for for years during the Obama administration, is actually provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to deal with the incursions coming from Russia to eastern Ukraine. Vladimir Putin actually cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006, 2009, and 2014. He invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in part to cut off access to the natural gas and oil resources. This is a pattern Vladimir Putin has of using energy as a weapon, and the best defense against this weapon is for these countries in Europe to have the kind of energy diversity and energy security that I have recommended. In March, I wrote a letter to the Treasury and State Departments encouraging the Trump administration to look at ways to stop the construction of the Nord Stream II Pipeline. That is what we need to do--stop the construction of the pipeline. It was a bipartisan effort, and 39 Senators from both parties signed on to the letter to express our concerns to President Trump about what was happening between Russia and Germany. Today, I take the next concrete step and introduce legislation to do four very important things. First, the legislation directs our representatives in NATO to work to achieve energy security for our partners throughout Europe and Eurasia. Second, it calls for a comprehensive strategy that involves increasing American energy exports to these countries being held hostage by Russia. Third, it requires the Energy Secretary to speed up approvals of American natural gas exports to our NATO allies and other countries. Finally, it authorizes mandatory U.S. sanctions on the development of Russian energy pipelines like Nord Stream II. It is in the national security interests of our country to help our allies reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Where those countries don't see it for themselves, we need to show them how important it is for their own security. Our NATO alliance is strong. A robust energy security strategy will make it even stronger. When Vladimir Putin looks at natural gas, he doesn't think natural gas; he thinks politics, he thinks money, and he thinks power, because that is how he equates the energy he supplies to these countries, on which they have become so dependent--money, power, politics. Germany and other countries in Europe and NATO should be doing all they can to diversify their sources of energy so they can help reduce the threat Russia poses to them. The United States should do all we can by exporting our abundant natural gas to our allies as quickly as possible. We have more than enough natural gas to meet our own needs and to export to our friends around the world. We can boost the security of our NATO allies and our friends around the world, and we should be doing it. We can do it through a peaceful process and a peaceful means without spending tax dollars, while at the same time growing our American economy with the production of American energy. When President Trump came to office, he said: It is no longer about energy security or energy independence; it is about energy dominance. Given what we have been blessed with in this country and the amount of energy and resources we have, we have an opportunity and, I believe, an obligation to use that energy wisely and productively. Vladimir Putin thinks about energy as money, as power, and as politics, and I think that what we need to do with the resources we have, as I am introducing in this legislation today, is a very commonsense approach.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Sharks''. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Brian J. Bulatao, of Texas, to be an Under Secretary (Management), and Denise Natali, of New Jersey, to be an Assistant Secretary (Conflict and Stabilization Operations), both of the Department of State. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness The Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness of the Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Molly Patrick, Lane Davis, Victoria Barczyk, James Payne, and Gabe Dabin, interns from Senator Kennedy's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I first wish to associate myself with the remarks from the outstanding Senator from West Virginia. We had a chance to be together on Monday night when the President announced the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and I agree with my colleague from West Virginia that it is a fantastic choice. I said before that there are three things I want to see in any nominee for the Court: the appropriate judicial philosophy, a strong intellect, and a solid character. Everything I have seen so far confirms that Judge Kavanaugh satisfies all three of these requirements. I would like to talk today about a few things I think we can expect to see over the next couple of months. First, I think it is safe to say that throughout this process, Judge Kavanaugh will not announce how he is going to rule on cases that might come before him on the Supreme Court. The Presiding Officer and I know--as we walked back from the visit at the White House and were heading home after having a chance to visit with the President of the United States before he actually told the country Judge Kavanaugh would be the nominee--that it is a very appropriate thing for the judge to do, to not announce how he is going to rule on cases that might come before him at the Supreme Court. In fact, the ethics rules say it is exactly what a nominee should do. They should avoid making these sorts of comments. The rules say that judges and nominees should not answer questions about how they would rule on a case they might consider, so I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will follow the rules and not get into specifics on which side he may favor. It is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a current member of the Court, did during her confirmation process in 1993. She said that ``a judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints''--no hints, no forecasts, no previews. She said that this would ``display disdain for the entire judicial process,'' and she was confirmed. That is the Ginsburg standard. Every nominee since then has followed that standard. Well, the second thing I expect to happen is that Democrats are going to complain that Judge Kavanaugh follows the Ginsburg standard, and we have heard it already. They are going to complain that he will not promise to take their side in cases that might come before the Court. They are going to complain--and have already--that some of the cases he has decided in the past didn't work out the way they wanted them to work out--not what the law said, not what was right, but what they wanted. That is what Democrats in the Judiciary Committee did when Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court last year. We have seen this movie before. We know the playbook. They have criticized him for some of the rulings they didn't like. Even though the rulings followed the law, they didn't like the rulings, so they criticized the judge for following the law. They suggested he should have ignored the law, sided with the little guy, the sympathetic side in a case, regardless of what the law said. But Judge Gorsuch knew the same thing Judge Kavanaugh knows: Judges are absolutely not supposed to consider who they think is sympathetic in a case, where the empathy lies. It is where the law lies. They are supposed to be making decisions and rules based on the law. Federal judges actually swear an oath, and the oath is to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and to do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' That is what Judge Kavanaugh has done during his 12 years as a member of the DC Circuit Court. The minority leader, Senator Schumer, has already said that is not good enough for him--not good enough for Senator Schumer. He wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 2, and he wrote this op-ed before the President had even made a decision as to who he might nominate. At the time, the President was considering a number of names. It didn't matter to Senator Schumer; he made it clear that he is going to fight any mainstream nominee unless he can confirm that the nominee will rule in a certain way. Judges don't do that. Judges shouldn't do it. Well, that is the litmus test now for liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate. They are going to try to make people believe that they know how Judge Kavanaugh is going to rule in the Supreme Court. When President Obama was picking people to serve as judges and Justices, he said that he was looking for people who would decide cases based on--this was his word--``empathy.'' Well, President Trump has consistently selected judges--and we have approved and confirmed quite a few now as we have been here since President Trump has taken office-- and Justices who decide cases based upon the law and the Constitution of the land. Judge Kavanaugh is exactly that kind of judge. He understands that writing the laws is not his job. It hasn't been his job in the circuit court, and it would not be his job on the Supreme Court. He gave a speech last year in which he said that Congress and the President, not the courts, possess the authority and the responsibility to legislate. Let me repeat that. Congress and the President, not the courts, possess the authority and responsibility to legislate. The third thing I expect to happen in this whole process is we will vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination before the next Supreme Court session starts in October. That is what the American people want us to do. NBC News did a recent poll, and they found that 62 percent of Americans want us to vote on this nomination before the November election, and only 33 percent said that we should wait. But Democrats want to delay. They want to delay the process. The American people are saying to get on with it. It is early July now. We are going to work through the month of August. It gives us plenty of time to consider this nomination. When you look at the people serving on the Supreme Court today, we typically spend about 66 days to confirm each of them. That is going to put it around the middle of September. There is no reason we need to take any longer than that. Judge Kavanaugh has been through this process before and has been confirmed by the Senate before. He was confirmed to the circuit court by a vote of 57 to 36 in this body. Four Democrats supported his confirmation. Judge Kavanaugh has served on the circuit court for over 12 years, has written a number of rulings--I think over 300. His background as a judge gives us powerful evidence of the kind of Justice he will be. He is going to take the law and the Constitution at face value. He is not going to treat them like blank pages on which he can rewrite the laws the way he wishes they were. In a speech last year, he made it very clear. He said: ``The judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy.'' This view--and every example I have seen from Judge Kavanaugh's record--is squarely in the mainstream of American legal thinking today. He is smart, he is fair, and I believe he is very well qualified. Regrettably, none of this matters to some of the Democrats. They are going to use the same scare tactics they use every time a Republican President nominates someone to the Supreme Court. They did it 40 years ago when President Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Court. Liberals accused him of ``antagonism to women's rights.'' When President Reagan nominated Justice Kennedy 31 years ago, the Justice who has just retired from the Court, Democrats said his nomination ``should be unsettling to those concerned with the health and legal status of women in America.'' They have been using the same old lines for more than 40 years. It is never true; it is never reality. But apparently for the Democrats, it never gets old. I hope the Democrats in the Senate will give Judge Kavanaugh a chance. I hope they will take the time to consider his qualifications and actually sit down and talk with him before they rush to condemn him, although quite a few rushed to condemn him even before the President had decided and he was named to the Court. I also look forward to sitting down with the nominee and exploring some of his views more fully, but everything I have seen so far suggests to me that it is going to be a very good conversation and that Judge Kavanaugh would make an excellent Justice of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Hotel Wolf in Saratoga, WY. Known as the Grand Old Lady of the Platte Valley, the hotel, which was once a hub for tie hacks, railroad workers, and miners, has a rich legacy of service. Hotel Wolf was established in 1883 by Frederick Wolf, a German immigrant. In 1869, following his service as a soldier in the German Army, he and his wife, Christina, came to America. He worked for the Central Michigan Railroad before moving during the westward expansion. Wolf was a foreman for the Union Pacific Railroad in Rawlins, WY. In 1887, Wolf moved to Saratoga, seeking relief from rheumatism in the community famous for its local hot springs, which were believed to own curative properties. It was here he conceived, built, and operated the Hotel Wolf. Wolf christened the building with a masquerade ball on New Year's Eve and opened for guests January 10, 1894. The building quickly became a popular local watering hole and destination for travelers moving through the area. In addition, it was a stop along the C.M. Scribner stage line, which ran between Encampment and Walcott. Today, Frederick Wolf's great-great-grandson Neil Gorsuch serves with distinction as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Although the hotel has seen a number of changes since its opening, its ownership has changed hands only five times. Several years after Wolf's death in 1910, the hotel was sold to George ``Baldy'' Sisson, who changed the name to Hotel Sisson. In 1937, Earl Moore purchased the property, returning the hotel to its original name. Earl died in 1947, and his wife, Mary, continued operations for the next 30 years. Under Mary's leadership, the Hotel Wolf was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. Finally, in 1977, Mary sold the property to Doug and Kathleen Campbell and partner Michael Self. The partnership ended in 1983, and Doug and Kathy became the hotel's sole proprietors. The Campbells have been remarkable stewards ever since. Like Mary Moore, they strive to preserve the architectural integrity of the building. Every renovation or upgrade enhances the hotel's spirit of Western heritage. Guests who stay often remark on the authentic decor and friendly staff. Their excellent hospitality was rewarded with the 2018 ``Big WYO'' Award from the Wyoming Lodging and Restaurant Association and the Wyoming Department of Tourism. This year, the Campbells will celebrate 41 years of hotel ownership. In 2017, Doug and Kathy celebrated 50 years of marriage. These milestones are certainly worthy of recognition and praise. The Hotel Wolf has several exciting events planned in honor of its 125th anniversary. In addition to a commemorative menu, vintage merchandise, and a family photo gallery, nationally recognized author C. J. Box will host a signing of his latest book, ``The Disappeared.'' The book references room No. 9 of the historic hotel. Box, who owns a cabin in Riverside, WY, is well-known throughout the Platte River Valley, having served as the director of Saratoga's Chamber of Commerce. It is an honor to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Hotel Wolf. I share my thanks with Doug and Kathy Campbell for their incredible stewardship of this historic gem. I am certain their children Jason and D'Ron Campbell, Judd Campbell and Nora Asbury, and Meghan and Torrey Pedersen--as well as the memory of Kirsten Campbell--are equally as proud. Doug and Kathy also have seven grandchildren: Kaitlyn, Jaden, Douglass, and Anthony Campbell, Burgan and Ava Campbell, and Simon Pedersen. I invite my colleagues to visit the Hotel Wolf and Saratoga to experience all that the remarkable Platte River Valley has to offer.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, when I am back home in Wyoming, as I am every weekend, people will often tell me about how they have suffered under the healthcare law known as ObamaCare. I have been able to give them some very good news recently about things that Republicans in Congress and this administration have done to help people get out of the ObamaCare problems they have been having and escape some of the problems that have been caused by the law. This is a headline in the Wall Street Journal from June 20: ``Exit From ObamaCare.'' It is something that I have been working on ever since the law was passed. What I have been able to tell people at home in Wyoming is that we have now scrapped the law's terribly unpopular individual mandate. We did that successfully this past year so that people aren't forced to buy insurance that may not be right for them or their families and, certainly, much more expensive than they would like to pay. That individual mandate was part of the law that said that every American--everyone--had to have insurance, not that worked for them but that Washington dictated, even if it wasn't the right choice for them or their family. I have told people about the work we have been doing to expand people's options, their choices, and their freedom to use what are called short-term, limited duration health plans. These are less expensive health plans. They are free from the expensive, intrusive, and burdensome regulations that ObamaCare has placed on the insurance that they have been forced to buy. Thanks to President Trump, I am now able to point to the latest thing that Republicans have done to help millions of Americans get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost to them. Last week, the Department of Labor expanded the availability of what have been known as association health plans. This Wall Street Journal editorial called ``Exit From ObamaCare,'' I believe, is the best example of it. The idea is very simple. Large employers in this country can offer their workers a variety of good health insurance plans, and they can do it because they have the negotiating leverage that comes with a large group of employers. Well, small businesses and people who work for themselves don't have that same ability, that same leverage. Their workers are often stuck looking for expensive coverage, and the place where it seems to be most expensive, certainly, that I see, is in the ObamaCare markets. So an association health plan lets these groups of individuals, or just individuals themselves, band together and negotiate as if they were one big business. They get much better deals. So maybe it is like all the Lyft drivers or Uber drivers or independent truck drivers working in a State or working across State lines all joining together or the small businesses that are members of the city's chamber of commerce--all of those small businesses doing that. We have seen that in Las Vegas, where the chamber of commerce there has been providing opportunities for all of the small businesses to come together. They have done it for over 30 years, but it was outlawed by the Obama healthcare law. Once again, these businesses can now join together to offer the same opportunities for coverage that the healthcare law reserved only for people who worked with big businesses. It is a way for people now--small businesses and their workers--to escape the ObamaCare marketplace that has failed so many people across the country. According to one estimate, Americans who sign up for one of these association health plans could save close to $10,000 a year on their premiums compared to the individual ObamaCare market. The plans would come with the same protections people get if they do work for large companies and they have the same protections for people with preexisting conditions, which, to me, is critical. My wife is a breast cancer survivor--multiple operations, chemotherapy. It is important that we continue to protect people with preexisting conditions, and this does it. We have all the same protections against losing coverage if someone in the family gets sick, but it just allows them to join together in a group to have much better buying opportunities and lower costs. They will have the same protections for people who want to cover their adult children up to 26 years of age. They will have the same bans on lifetime limits for how much the insurance will pay. Where I live in Wyoming, most of the businesses we have are small businesses. It is the nature of our State. It is a rural economy. They are the small shop owners, ice cream stores, and florists on the corners. When I talk to people in Wyoming, every one of them considers themselves a small business in the sense that they don't really use the word ``small'' very much because they just think of themselves as businesses in our State, businesses in our communities, businesses that our families rely on and go to and shop at regularly. These are people who want to do right by their workers, and they want to offer a lot of the same benefits that bigger companies have and offer their workers. So this new move by the Trump administration really does give all of them a chance to do that, specifically when it comes to health insurance and benefits for their employees. So Republican policies have been so successful at creating a thriving and growing economy that we now have more job openings in America than we actually have people looking for work. That is how strong this economic recovery has become. Small businesses really do need to be able to offer these better health benefits in order to compete for workers. They need to be able to compete to provide affordable insurance so they can afford to provide it for their workers. At the same time, people who own insurance have seen prices more than double under ObamaCare. We need to help those people get back to more reasonable rates so they are getting the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford. When Democrats wrote the healthcare law and passed it on straight party-line votes, they actually targeted small businesses and forced them to pay more. That is hard to believe, but it is true. So Republicans are leveling the playing field. Under this new plan--this exit from ObamaCare--it has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that 4 million Americans will sign up for this new option--4 million Americans. That is how popular this is going to be. For people who don't have insurance right now because they can't afford it, they are saying that 400,000 more Americans who currently don't have insurance will be able to get insurance because it will now be affordable for them. So they will finally have a chance to get the high-quality insurance they couldn't afford under the mandates of ObamaCare. This isn't something that anyone is going to be required to sign up for. It is something about which people will have the freedom to make decisions and choices and the flexibility to see what works best for them. That is what it is about--freedom and flexibility and choice. People can decide for themselves if one of these association health plans is the best option for them, the best option for their workers or for their families. They will choose one of these plans only if they decide it gives them better coverage and better value. Isn't that what people want? They want choices and value for the money they spend. It is interesting that just as a result of the fact that these associated health plans came out and the options were provided, Democrats don't seem to like the fact that Americans will have this kind of choice. Washington Democrats like to talk about the benefits of union workers being able to get together to negotiate for things like better healthcare, but the same Democrats here in the Senate oppose this new action by the Trump administration that just lets workers get together to negotiate for better, more affordable healthcare coverage. The only difference here is that the Republicans want to give this opportunity to people who are self-employed or who work for small businesses. It does seem to be that the Democrats want to reserve the right only for the union members--the big unions--and maybe they are the ones who fund their Democratic campaigns for reelection. There is nothing in the new association health plans that tries to lure younger, healthy people away from ObamaCare plans. It just says that here is a choice. Nothing requires people or businesses to participate. It just provides millions of Americans with a choice: ObamaCare or an association health plan. That is the difference. You take a look and see what works best for you. See what you find value in, where you are going to get value for your dollars, and make that decision. Republicans are for opportunities and options. Democrats seem to be more for mandates and restrictions. We like to offer options, opportunities, and openness. I think the American people prefer options in this land of opportunity. Democrats are going to go out on the campaign trail and claim that what we have done now with these association health plans is to sabotage ObamaCare. I have heard them talk. Don't believe it. If the only way ObamaCare can survive is to force millions of hard-working Americans to pay too much for their health insurance, then, ObamaCare is the problem. Democrats don't seem to want to admit that. They also don't really want to change any of the things that are broken in the American healthcare system. They want it to stay broken so they can push the plan for what we have heard some of the Democrats refer to as a single-payer health plan. That is a completely government-run healthcare system, where all of the bills are paid by the taxpayers. It has become the liberal litmus test for the Democrats. We are going to hear them a lot more talking about that in the weeks and months ahead. When I look at that as a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, as an orthopedic surgeon taking care of families in Wyoming, and having taken care of people from Canada, where they have a single-payer system--a government-run system--what I have seen from the patients I have taken care of who have come from Canada to the United States for care--why did they come if it is free in Canada?--is that they came because they couldn't afford to wait as long as they would have to wait to get the care. So when we look at what has been proposed by a number of the Democrats, cosponsored by many--a single-payer healthcare system, a government-run insurance plan--we are talking about a program with higher taxes, longer lines, and fewer choices. I believe that is not what the American people want. What they want is an exit from ObamaCare into much more affordable insurance, something that works for them, something where they have an opportunity to make their own choices and have the flexibility to evaluate what is best for them and their families. We are offering real solutions to improve healthcare in this country. We are giving families more freedom and more flexibility to choose what works for them, not what Washington dictates. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, as we know, last week President Trump took what I believe is a historic first step in making America and the whole world more safe, more stable, and more secure. I believe his efforts to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program have already produced tangible results. North Korea has suspended nuclear tests and is dismantling a test facility. They have also committed to recovering and sending home the remains of Americans killed during the Korean war. Now the Trump administration is taking the next steps. The State Department is hard at work on followup discussions. Secretary of State Pompeo says he may personally return to North Korea before very long. When we heard from President Trump about his trip to Singapore last week, he was upbeat about the talks. He understands these followup talks are going to be where the specifics really start to be discussed. That is where, as they say, the rubber meets the road. I think the talks have a very real opportunity for success. Success means an agreement that is durable, enforceable, and verifiable. It means an agreement that eliminates all nuclear weapons from North Korea and from the entire Korean Peninsula--nothing less. So I am cautiously optimistic about the talks. President Trump has applied a program of maximum pressure, and that has brought North Korea to the table. We had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the upload from the whole discussion was this: Sanctions work. The next stage of these negotiations is going to help us understand whether now is the right time, whether the Kim regime is truly ready to give up its nuclear weapons. If it is not ready, the pressure can resume. The pressure can even be increased. The maximum-pressure approach will ultimately work--if not today, then someday. Meanwhile, the United States is in a very strong negotiating position. We know that as a result of the efforts by President Trump and the strong position we are in, it is something that not just we know but North Korea knows as well. We know exactly what we need to have happen in these talks and exactly what North Korea must do. We are willing to walk away if an agreement falls short. That is how you win a negotiation. When President Obama negotiated with Iran over their nuclear program, I think he lost sight of that important rule. He wanted a deal so badly that what he was willing to accept was a bad deal. President Trump is a negotiator, and I am confident that he is going to walk away if the only deal to be had is one that is bad for the United States. I am confident we can reach our goals of a nuclear-free North Korea-- today or at some point down the road. I remain very clear-eyed, as does the President, about the possibilities, as well as the pitfalls, and I think we should be clear-eyed and concerned. The world remains a very dangerous place. Our adversaries, including North Korea, are cunning, opportunistic, and aggressive. We need to be sure we don't lose sight of whom we are dealing with. The Kim regime, going back to his father and grandfather, has a history of appalling attacks on their own people. They have shown no interest in the human rights, political rights, or civil liberties of North Koreans. I think history will judge this family very harshly. All that said, making the world a safer place and doing what is best for America means we have to deal with other countries as they are. Sometimes it includes sitting down to negotiate with other countries and other leaders who have a terrible record on human rights. The United States must continue to do all we can to force hostile nations back from the brink of war. We must encourage countries to embrace democracy, to abide by the rule of law, and to support the freedoms and rights of all people. As President Kennedy once said, ``Is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights?'' The worst human rights violations imaginable would be a nuclear explosion killing millions of people, some of them instantly, many of them slowly and in agony. President Trump knows that is what these negotiations are about, that the stakes are high, and that Mike Pompeo is the right person for this difficult job. He understands the people he is negotiating with, and he understands the facts on the ground. During his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said an interesting thing about America's place in the world. He said: ``If we don't lead for democracy, for prosperity, and for human rights around the world, who will?'' I think it is clear that the Secretary of State approaches these talks with a clear understanding of what American leadership looks like. He also knows what American strength looks like. The President hit the ``pause'' button on military exercises scheduled for later this year. He can just as easily restart those exercises. We have 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea. I have visited some of them who are from my home State of Wyoming. The U.S. Navy is still in the area; they remain ready at a moment's notice. So America is going to be in a position of strength at every step of these negotiations, whether it is economically, diplomatically, politically, or militarily. I was critical of President Obama's Iran deal because it was a bad deal, not because ending Iran's nuclear program was a bad idea. I was critical of the Iran deal because it gave up too much in return for too little. It made permanent concessions for temporary return. I was critical because it was done without the support of the American people through their representatives in the Senate. I am confident that President Trump will not make the same mistakes. President Trump has given Kim Jong Un a taste--just a taste--of what it means to be welcomed as one of the peaceful, civilized nations of the world. It is up to Kim whether he wants to remain in this world or whether he wants to return to being an isolated, backward, pariah state, as North Korea has been for so long. It is up to Kim whether he wants to embrace civilized norms of respecting human rights and the freedom of his people. That is his decision to make. As for the rest of us, we can remain hopeful while still being skeptical. We cannot insist that the talks in North Korea must lead to great breakthrough immediately. Nobody can make a promise like that, and no one can expect that as the only standard for success. What we can expect is that our President will always put the interests of the American people first, whether he is negotiating with our allies or with our adversaries. That is what the American people expect, and I think all of us can rest assured that President Trump will keep that promise. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam President. As the Presiding Officer well knows, last December, Republicans voted to cut the taxes that American families pay. We simplified the tax system. We made it fairer and cut the rates. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted against giving Americans this tax relief that they needed--every single one of them. Democrats claimed that only rich people would benefit and that businesses would never share their savings with workers. The Democratic Leader, Senator Schumer, actually said that tax cuts such as these only benefit the wealthy and the powerful, to the exclusion of the middle class. So what happened? What have we seen all across America? The American people know that the Democrats were wrong. The very day the tax bill passed the Congress, AT&T came out and said they were giving their workers a bonus. The company said that 200,000 hard-working employees were going to get an extra $1,000 each directly because of the tax relief law. Over the next few weeks, more than 4 million Americans got similar good news: They were going to get bonuses too. They learned that they would be getting a bonus or a pay increase because of the tax law. More than 500 companies have said that because their taxes went down, they were sharing the savings with their workers. In my home State of Wyoming, these are people who work at places like Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, and Starbucks. It is also people who work at small businesses, like Taco John's and the Jonah Bank in Casper, WY. It is people who work at the Bockman Group in Sheridan, WY. That is a local business that specializes in fencing and excavation. I had a chance to meet with all of those people. They said the employees would be getting raises for one reason, and that is because of the tax law. The owner actually said that with this tax cut, he would now move ahead with starting two new businesses this year, employing more people. That means more jobs and more economic opportunities for people in northeast Wyoming. Another thing that we had a chance to talk about when the tax law was passed was how this would affect people's utility bills. It started happening right away. Americans noted that their utility bills starting going down. There are more than 100 utility companies across the country that have cut the rates they charge for electricity as a direct result of the tax law. And it is not just electricity; it is gas bills, water bills, all of the above. Look at the number. One hundred and two utilities cut their rates across the country. How much money does that add up to? How much money did people actually save because bills are going down for families all across the country because of the Republican tax cuts? The tax rate cuts amount to a savings of $3 billion for American families who are paying less money for utilities. That is an incredible savings for American families. Democrats said the companies would keep their tax savings. Instead, the savings are being passed along to consumers. That is the way it was supposed to work, that is the way it did work, and the benefit for families across the country amounts to $3 billion in lower utility rates. Americans are starting to use more energy right now to keep their homes cool this summer. It is that time of the year. These rate cuts are very good news for families all across the country. When monthly bills get cut, they have more money to save, spend, and invest. It is their money, so they get to make those decisions on how they want to use it. That is what happens when we change the tax laws. Washington gets less, and taxpayers get to keep more. Republicans cut taxes. Working Americans are seeing more money in their own pockets as a result. I hear about it every weekend in Wyoming. People are saying that this tax law has made a specific difference in their lives--their personal lives, for them, their families, and their children. They see it with their neighbors as well. They get more money from their jobs, they pay less in taxes, and they pay less for things, such as utility bills. People are winning in three different ways because of the Republican tax relief law. A lot of people are seeing more good jobs now than ever before. The numbers came out last week. People collecting unemployment insurance is at a 44-year low. They don't need the unemployment benefits because they are working. We haven't seen numbers this low since 1973. It is a sign that we have a very strong, healthy, and a growing economy. People are keeping their jobs or getting new and better jobs. If people get laid off or want to change jobs, they can get a new one right away. They don't need to go on unemployment. They don't need to collect unemployment insurance because we have a strong, healthy, and growing economy right now. The Labor Department said that there are now 6.7 million job openings across the country. That is an alltime high. For the first time ever, there are actually more job openings than there are unemployed people who are looking for work--6.7 million openings, 6.3 million job hunters. So when looking at some of these measures, the American economy isn't just stronger than it was before the recession, it is stronger than it has been in decades. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta says that we are on a pace for the economy to grow more than 4 percent in the second quarter of this year. They actually say it may be as high as 4.6 percent. It is astonishing. The American people don't need an economist to tell them what they see with their own two eyes in their own communities. They see that the economy as strong, the economy is healthy, and the economy is growing. All they need to do is look around their hometown, talk to their neighbors, talk to their friends, see how people who might have been out of work now have jobs and job opportunities. They are paying less in taxes, keeping more of their hard-earned money, and they are seeing it in their paychecks. The proof is in the paycheck. I expect to see it again at home in Wyoming this weekend. Businesses are hiring, workers are getting bonuses, raises, more money in their pockets, more money in their paychecks. People across America are feeling better about their opportunities. The opportunities are there. They are real. They are being grasped by people all around the country. There is confidence. There is an optimism we haven't had previously. There is a positiveness in people's lives, and it is happening because of the policies Republicans are implementing in Congress and in the White House, in this partnership between a President and a Congress committed to cutting taxes, to slashing regulations, to letting people keep more of their hard-earned money. We have no intention of stopping now. Democrats are continuing to look for ways to slow things down, to block the progress, and to change the subject. They don't want to talk about any of these things. Republicans are looking for ways to keep America growing and to keep America strong. That is what Republicans in Congress are committed to doing. The American people expect us to keep going, to keep looking for ways to make America better, stronger, and safer. It is what the American people expect from us, and it is exactly what Republicans are going to continue to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week I traveled all around my home State of Wyoming, and many Senators have done the same in their home States over the last week. I will tell my colleagues that the people I talked with had a great sense of optimism, confidence, and positiveness in terms of how things were going with their lives. People were feeling very positive about the American economy, about their own lives, and of course about their future. We just saw new numbers on Friday showing that the American economy has created more than 1 million new jobs since we passed the Tax Relief and Jobs Act in December. Since President Trump was elected, we have actually gotten more than 3 million more Americans working. Unemployment is now at 3.8 percent, and that matches the lowest rate in 50 years. Even the New York Times ran a headline saying: ``We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.'' Think about that, the New York Times: ``We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.'' Every month we have been adding thousands of new jobs in construction, in manufacturing, in healthcare, and mining. We have had strong and steady growth, and the American people and American families are benefiting in every part of the country. It is not just that people are getting jobs; it is that the jobs are paying better as well. According to the most recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, there were a record number of small companies raising their wages last month--a record number raising wages. Average wages are up by 2.7 percent over the last year. Employers can pay more because business is booming. They need more workers. On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said there are now 6.7 million job openings across the country. That is an alltime high. The Labor Department says that for the first time ever, there are actually more job openings than there are unemployed people who are looking for work. It is an incredible situation. People look around them and see all of the hiring that is going on and all of the pay raises; it just makes people confident because they see it at home in their communities. It is not just something they read in the newspaper. It is not just something they see on TV. It is what they see at home in their communities in their own lives and in their own paychecks. Consumer confidence is at an 18-year high. People know things are going well. They know they have more money in their pockets, and they know the American economy is thriving. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta says they are at a pace for the economy to grow over 4 percent during the second quarter of this year. Remember that Democrats have been saying there was no way we could even get to 3 percent. Now the Federal Reserve of Atlanta is saying over 4 percent, and they say we are actually heading to close to 5. It is excellent news, and it is not an accident. That is the thing, it is not an accident. It is happening because of the policies Republicans are implementing in Congress and in the White House. It is a partnership. President Trump has been in office for 500 days, and it has been an incredibly productive time. He has been wiping burdensome and unnecessary regulations off the books. He has been making it easier for people to do their jobs, easier to live their lives. President Trump issued an order cutting government redtape. He said for every significant new rule an agency wanted to write, it had to get rid of two rules. For every one new rule, get rid of two. The result has been even better than expected. So far, in this fiscal year, agencies have cut 38 major regulations of the kind the President has been talking about. At the same time, they have only written five new regulations that are major regulations. President Trump said he would cut two for every one new regulation, but what we really see is that the number is much closer to eight regulations cut for every new one. Republicans in Congress have done the same. We have been cutting redtape. We have been loosening Washington's stranglehold on the economy, and we can see it in the economy every day. We have been cutting the mandates and the restrictions that hold back growth. We have cut the taxes people pay. The tax relief law we passed in December was the biggest tax cut in 36 years. It gave people an immediate boost in their take-home pay. Millions of Americans also got bonuses and raises because of the law. It has been an enormous boost for the overall economy. We have a strong, healthy, and growing economy. It is interesting because every Democrat in the Senate voted against the tax cut--every one of them. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House, said that if she had it her way, Democrats would get rid of the tax relief law and actually raise taxes again. The American people know that would be a disaster. Democrats' ideas for higher taxes and lower take-home pay for families and more government regulation--which is what the Democrats are proposing--would do incredible damage to our economy and to our country. Democrats tried their ideas when they were in charge, and they have failed. We had slow economic growth. We had stagnant wages. Democrats tried to say this was the new normal for America. The American people knew that could not be the new normal; it wasn't good enough. The American people will not tolerate it, and they voted to change it. People said they wanted Republican ideas and Republican policies. Now they are seeing the results, and they are living with the benefits. People are seeing jobs numbers that are so good they have run out of words. As the headline says: We have run out of words to describe how good the jobs numbers are. It has been 500 days, and we are just getting started. What we need to do now is keep looking for ways to create a growing economy, a strong economy, a healthy economy, with larger paychecks and more prosperity right here at home for American families. One place we can do this is in the area of infrastructure. We can start with water infrastructure. These are the systems that deliver drinking water and treat wastewater. They provide water for our crops and cattle and small businesses. They are used to ship American-made goods from the heartland to the coasts and around the world. They keep our homes safe from dangerous floodwaters. They store water for times of drought. These systems are vital to our country. They support America's economic growth and American competitiveness. We need to build, maintain, and upgrade them. Over the past 50 years, we have gone from being a society that spends much more on construction to one spending much more on consumption. As a result, our bridges and our roads, dams, and waterways have suffered. That is why I introduced the America's Water Infrastructure Act. It is a bipartisan bill--something Republicans and Democrats agree we should do. It is a way to grow the economy, to cut Washington's redtape, and keep communities safe. We are going to have a chance in the coming weeks to pass America's Water Infrastructure Act. Then we are going to look for more ways and things we can do to keep America growing and strong. That is what Republicans in Congress are committed to doing. What this President and this Congress have accomplished together has truly been historic. We need to keep going. It is what the American people expect from us, and it is actually what they deserve. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Annie Caputo and David Wright on their confirmation as members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regrettably, it has taken almost a year for the Senate to confirm these excellent nominees. This is yet another example of how broken the Senate's confirmation process is and why we need to change the rules so we can process nominees in a timely manner. Annie and David will make outstanding commissioners. For over a decade, Annie has served as a top adviser on nuclear energy issues to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. She has worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, advising the committees' chairmen, including former Chairman Jim Inhofe and, now, me. Here on Capitol Hill, Annie is considered the dean of nuclear energy policy. More than any other staff member, she knows the nuclear power sector. As a nuclear engineer, Annie knows the physics behind nuclear power. She also knows the challenges it faces and the bright future it can have if we make the right decisions here in Washington. Likewise, Annie knows our Nation's nuclear regulatory agencies, especially the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She understands how the NRC can be improved, how it can be more responsive to the public and its licensers, and the best way to accomplish that goal. Prior to becoming chairman, I found Annie to be instrumental in helping me conduct oversight of the nuclear industry and the NRC. She was particularly helpful following Fukushima. Since becoming chairman, I have seen how she is an invaluable part of the Environment and Public Works staff. For example, Annie was largely responsible for drafting S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This is a bill that will help facilitate the licensing of advanced reactors and reform how the NRC collects fees from its shrinking pool of licensees. It is a bill that we need if this country is going to allow nuclear power to succeed in the future. Last year, the committee passed this bill by a broad bipartisan vote of 18 to 3. It remains a top priority of mine and is legislation Congress should send to the president by the end of the year. Beyond the area of policy, I want to thank Annie for the role she played at the committee office. I want to thank her for helping my other staff, especially the way in which she served as a mentor to them. They are better staffers for the time they spent learning from and alongside Annie. I know other Members of Congress in the House and Senate feel the same way and share my gratitude to her. So congratulations, again, Annie. Congress will be a poorer place without you. But our loss will be the NRC's gain. While I do not know David on a personal level, I also believe he will be an asset to the NRC. For about a decade, David served as a member and chairman of South Carolina's Public Service Commission. He also served as the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. David is held in high esteem among those who work on nuclear issues. Like Annie, he is a dedicated public servant. I wish the two of them the very best in their new roles on the Commission. Thank you.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past 50 years, our country has gone from being a construction society to a consumption society. As a result, our bridges, our roads, our dams, and our waterways have suffered. President Trump has said that rebuilding America's infrastructure is a priority for his administration. He said that we will build ``with American heart, American hands, and American grit.'' That is what President Trump said in the State of the Union this year. Yesterday the Committee on Environment and Public Works took a big step toward meeting that goal. We voted to approve the America's Water Infrastructure Act. There are a lot of people in Wyoming and around the Rocky Mountain West, as well, who say that--well, it was originally attributed to Mark Twain, and it goes like this: ``Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.'' Surprisingly, in this case, we actually didn't fight over the water of the United States. This legislation was written by Republicans and Democrats, and it passed with unanimous, bipartisan support of 21 to 0. Both parties agreed that there is a lot we can do to improve America's water infrastructure. Basically, the bill comes down to three big things. It grows the economy and creates jobs, it cuts redtape by getting more control out of Washington, and it keeps communities safe. The first way this legislation supports America's economy is by increasing water storage. That is a big concern in my home State of Wyoming and across the West. We have had a serious problem over the years where sediment builds up behind dams in the lakes where water is stored. That sediment limits the amount of water the lakes can hold. We are telling the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to develop plans to deal with this sediment at Federal reservoirs. That is a simple thing that Washington can do, and now it is going to get done. We are also expanding water storage capacity by making it easier to get permits for additional reservoirs. We have a facility in Lincoln County, WY, that is called the Fontenelle Reservoir. We have been trying to expand the water storage at that reservoir for years. This legislation makes sure the expansion will finally occur. Farmers, ranchers, and communities nearby will get a new, reliable supply of the water they need. Of course, the water doesn't do much good if people can't get it where they need it. So we fix the failing irrigation systems that are so important in rural areas. We are also improving America's inland waterways, which people rely on to move products to market. On the coasts, we deepen some of the most vital ports, and we can ship goods from there around the world. The pro-growth policies, like the tax cuts we passed last year, have helped America's economy take off. Now we need to make sure that we have the water infrastructure in place to keep it growing, to keep people working, and to keep American raw materials and American-made products moving. The second thing this legislation does is to cut some of the burdensome and unnecessary redtape that does nothing but get in the way of economic progress that we need. We are going to make sure that these water projects reflect the priorities of the American people, not the priorities of Washington bureaucrats. That means more local control over which projects get built. Local leaders know what they need, and they know which projects will make the biggest difference. Once we identify the best projects, then we need to make sure that they actually get built. Today, the permitting process can drag on for years, while people get more and more desperate for projects to be finished. The America's Water Infrastructure Act will push the Army Corps of Engineers to complete all feasibility studies for new projects within less than 2 years. We also eliminate the need for multiple benefit- cost-ratio assessments for a single project. These are expensive, and they take lot of time. Often, the Army Corps of Engineers will require new assessments several times for a single project. This legislation gets rid of these redundant studies. It is going to make a big difference in getting things built on time and on budget. The third big thing that this legislation does is to help keep American communities safe. We are going to repair some of the old drinking water and wastewater systems across the country. We provide help for places that need to clean up pollution in their water and to keep the pollution from getting into the water in the first place. As a doctor, I can tell you that this is extremely important for the health of our families and for our communities. That is why it is a priority in this legislation. We also take some important steps to reduce floods in rural areas. In my home State of Wyoming and in other parts of the West, this is a continual threat for many people. Every spring they have to worry about floods caused by snow and ice melting. We have dams and levees where maintenance has been put off for so long that people are anxious every time the water starts to rise. We are addressing the backlog of maintenance as well. We are looking for ways to permanently fix some of these areas where ice backs up along the rivers and cause serious damage. Most people don't give a lot of thought to the water that comes into their home. They turn on the faucet, water comes out, comes into the house, and water goes out of the house. This legislation makes sure that people don't have to worry about that changing. Their water will be safe, reliable, and abundant so they will not have to worry about it. For most of us in the West, water is always on our minds. It is vital to our way of life. We rely on irrigation and water storage for our livestock and our crops. We rely on water to transport our products to markets far away. We rely on dams and levees to protect us from floods. This legislation makes sure that people in rural communities can still count on the water being there when we need it. That is good for all of us. Republicans and Democrats agree. We know there is a lot of work to be done to address America's water infrastructure needs. We know we need to get the job done right. We need to get it done faster, better, cheaper, and smarter. The America's Water Infrastructure Act does just that. This cooperative piece of legislation passed the committee 21 to 0. Now it is time for the entire Senate to act. I yield the floor.