Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act of 2018

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh. By any honest measure, President Trump's nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, is exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. When he was nominated to the DC Circuit, he already had stellar credentials, a keen intellect, and an impressive knowledge of the law. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court in 2006, following years of Democratic obstruction. I have followed his work closely on that court for over a decade. His judicial record never ceases to impress.

A nominee with such a sterling reputation should receive wide bipartisan support. But over the years, I have seen firsthand the deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. When Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, I knew the Democrats would, again, play politics with the Supreme Court. It is what they have done for more than three decades. It is a matter of grave concern to me, especially with an eminently qualified nominee. They are casting about looking for something--really, anything--to stop Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Because Democrats want political judges, they politicize the confirmation process. This is what they did to oppose Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was nominated. They took a few cases out of the thousands he had decided and distorted what he had said. They attacked him as being unfit to serve. They said he was unqualified to be a Justice, but Justice Gorsuch had an unassailable record as a principled jurist on the Federal bench.

We fought back against the misrepresentations, the caricatures, and the exaggerations, and the American people saw through the Democrats' ruse. They saw the kind of Justice Neil Gorsuch would be--a Justice who says what the law is, not what he wants it to be, a Justice who respects the separation of powers, a Justice who will stand up to the executive and legislative branches when they overreach. I believe the American people will see the same thing when they look at Judge Kavanaugh.

The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation should be a debate over his qualifications. Does he understand the proper role of a judge under our Constitution? Does he have the experience needed? Will he respect our Constitution and the rule of law?

With hundreds of opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has built a reputation as being one of the most respected and influential judges in the entire country. His incisive reasoning has led the Supreme Court to adopt his positions in at least 12 cases.

Fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of law are hallmarks of his opinions. Importantly, his vast body of work shows a deep commitment to the separation of powers. His opinions demonstrate his commitment to the principle that judges should interpret the law, not make it.

Judge Kavanaugh should be asked questions about his rulings and his approach to the law. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for his preparation in court. I have no doubt that he can stand up under the most rigorous questioning.

Yet what we have seen so far is a mix of hyperbole, mudslinging, and distortion. Attacks aimed at Judge Kavanaugh have not focused on whether he is qualified to serve. They have not focused on whether he understands the role of a judge. They have not focused on how he will interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. When it comes to what we should be asking about a nominee, what we have seen so far is not even in the ballpark.

After scouring Judge Kavanaugh's financial disclosure, progressives thought they had struck gold with a shocking revelation that would, surely, turn public opinion against him. So

what salacious scandal did they uncover? What damning evidence did they find that would dash all hopes of confirmation?

The Presiding Officer is not going to believe this, but they discovered that Judge Kavanaugh enjoys America's pastime. That is right. Judge Kavanaugh loves baseball--horrors. Honestly, I couldn't believe it either. But wait. It gets worse.

Not only does Judge Kavanaugh love baseball, but he was once a season ticket holder at Nationals Park. OK, but here is the real kicker. Judge Kavanaugh bought those season tickets with a credit card--with a credit card of all things. As was the Presiding Officer, I was speechless too. I have been racking my brain all week trying to figure out how a credit card-using baseball fan could slip through the cracks of the White House's vetting process.

Now, I am being facetious to prove a point. We are only 9 days into the confirmation process, and progressive opposition is already beyond parody.

Of course, this is nothing new. Everything we have seen so far comes directly from the Democrats' playbook. Throw every rumor, half-truth, and exaggeration at the nominee, and just see what sticks. When nothing sticks, double down on partisan attacks, take past statements out of context, mischaracterize his positions, and lob a hyperbolic Hail Mary if you have to. Do everything you can to denigrate, disparage, and dehumanize the nominee no matter his qualifications or character.

If Democrats continue down this path, we are going to lose all ability to debate matters of public importance. We cannot expect that all debate will be well reasoned, but opposition should, at the very least, be rational. It should never be hysterical. The rhetoric used to oppose Judge Kavanaugh crosses that line.

Just last week, when speaking about Judge Kavanaugh's impressive resume, I said you could not knock Yale, Harvard, or Georgetown. Maybe I spoke too soon. Shortly after the announcement that Judge Kavanaugh would be the nominee, Yale Law School released a statement with praise of Judge Kavanaugh from professors and administrators.

One professor even noted that ``politics have deeply harmed our Supreme Court nomination process,'' but she lauded Judge Kavanaugh as being a ``true intellectual,'' an ``incomparable mentor,'' and a ``fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law.'' She went on to say that ``he is humble, collegial, and cares deeply about the federal courts.''

The response from some Yale Law School students, staff, and alumni was swift, forceful, uncompromising, and completely ridiculous: ``People will die if he is confirmed.'' As these Yale alumni were feverishly opposing the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh was spotted volunteering his time with a local charity to distribute food to the poor. His decision to keep his commitment to volunteer the week he was nominated to the Supreme Court says more about Judge Kavanaugh than any letter could.

This overwrought reaction, sadly, comes as no surprise. Crying wolf is the left's trademark strategy in attempts to sabotage Republican nominees. Back in 1990, a group that opposed then-nominee David Souter warned that he was a threat to the ``lives, health and livelihoods of millions of women and their families.'' It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

I hope that the Senate can raise the level of debate as we consider the nomination. In doing so, we should focus on whether Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.

I hope my Democratic colleagues can resist the temptation to politicize this nomination as they have with others in the past. Some of what we are seeing now has me worried.

We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how important transparency is to the confirmation process. Because of Judge Kavanaugh's long record of public service to our Nation, the executive branch has been asked to produce a large number of documents. Democrats have been demanding that they be given access to these documents as quickly as possible.

Some of my colleagues have expressed shock that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein requested that assistant U.S. attorneys help to review these documents. The truth is that the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department always assists with nominations, and that Office is composed mostly of career attorneys. It is not uncommon for attorneys from other offices in the Justice Department to help with the review of nominations.

The government attorneys at the Department of Justice who work on nominations are extraordinarily thorough. Given the reportedly large number of documents, it makes sense that to facilitate this process, the DOJ would seek extra help.

When we spoke last week, Judge Kavanaugh said he was proud of his opinions, and he hoped people would actually read them rather than just read about them. I think those who do that will be just as impressed by Judge Kavanaugh's work as I am. I hope Senators will take the time to sit down with him.

Judge Kavanaugh has spent more than 23 years in public service. As a good man, a decent man, and an honest man, Judge Kavanaugh is the type of person we should all hope is nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why I am so pleased that President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh. I intend to do everything I can to support his nomination, and I hope that all other Senators will do the same.

We have to quit this mudslinging and mischaracterizing of people's characters. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people I know. He is also one of the smartest. He is conservative--no question about that-- but he is honest. To me, these are some of the most important keys to these judgeship positions. I hope we get rid of the unjust representations against the judge. I hope we will start treating the Senate like the great deliberative body it really is.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 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. President, nearly 5 million young people ages 16 to 24, or 1 in 9 youth, are disconnected from both school and work. These disconnected youth often face significant barriers; they are three times more likely than other youth to have a disability, twice as likely to live below the federal poverty threshold, and significantly more likely to live in racially segregated neighborhoods. Disconnection can leave young people without the entry-level work experience and post-secondary credentials they need to succeed in the workforce and with significantly less lifetime earnings than the typical worker.

Disconnection also imposes significant costs on affected young people, their communities, and the overall economy. According to Measure of America, in 2013, youth disconnection resulted in $26.8 billion in public expenditures, including spending on health care, public assistance, and incarceration.

Dedicated Federal funding to support summer and year-long employment for youth can help to mitigate and prevent disconnection, as well as help young people, their communities, and the economy to flourish and develop our future workforce. Twenty years ago, dedicated Federal funding supported an estimated 500,000 summer jobs for youth. However, when the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) eliminated Federal stand-alone funding, participation in summer youth employment programs dropped by 50 to 90 percent in most local areas. Through targeted resources and supports, including funding for summer and year-long employment and comprehensive supports for youth, we can move closer as a country toward reconnecting the millions of young people who have slipped through the cracks and prevent disconnection from occurring in the first place.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today The Opening Doors for Youth Act. The Opening Doors for Youth Act aims to assist the 5 million at-risk young people who are disconnected from both school and work find summer or year-long jobs that help them to succeed in future careers. The bill provides, Federal funding so local communities can create partnerships with businesses, mentoring, financial literacy planning, and other supportive services. Through the partnerships, workforce boards can use funds to cover up to 75 percent of wages for each eligible young person participating in the program.

Young people play a critical role in our economy and communities and we must ensure that they have the resources and skills to find and maintain jobs that set them up for future success. With the right resources, city governments, local workforce boards, school districts, and employers can work together to help us close the employment gap we're seeing for at-risk young people. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider The Opening Doors for Youth Act commonsense legislation that moves the needle forward on promoting access for all youth to meaningful employment.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.