Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, yesterday marked the sixth anniversary of the kidnapping of a brave young man named Austin Tice.

Back in 2012, Austin decided to put his law school studies on hold and spend the summer in Syria as a freelance journalist. He was frustrated with the lack of good information on Syria's civil war--a war that, by some estimates, has claimed more than one-half million lives and displaced millions more, having created a refugee crisis affecting neighboring countries, like Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, and having destabilized the entire region.

In spite of the violence and political turmoil and as a strong believer in the freedom of the press, Austin wanted to let his fellow Americans know what was going on in that terrible civil war, which continues to this day. So he didn't wait around for someone else to act; he went to Syria himself, and he reported on the civil war.

As with most things he tried, Austin proved to be a very successful journalist. But then, in August of 2012, just days before he was planning to leave Syria, he was taken hostage, and little has been heard from him since. That is why I am again today renewing my call for Austin Tice's immediate release by his captors.

Over the last several years, I have had the privilege of meeting with Austin's parents a number of times, Mark and Debra Tice, who have worked tirelessly to locate him and bring him home safely. In fact, I plan to meet with them again this afternoon to bring them up to speed on my most recent conversations with National Security Adviser John Bolton, whom I have asked to meet with the Tices and maintain the continuity between the Obama administration and now the Trump administration when it comes to efforts

to return him safely to his family and friends.

Of course, his family doesn't know Austin as a journalist, primarily; they don't know him primarily as a decorated Marine Corps veteran, a Houston native, and a seventh-generation Texan, either--all of which he is. They, of course, know him as their friend, their brother, their son.

Austin Tice has a family who is waiting for him, missing him, and laboring to find any piece of information that will lead to his whereabouts and return him home safely.

Today, on the sixth anniversary, I am here to say that the entire Nation stands behind the Tice family. In solidarity with them, we call for Austin's immediate release by his captors and urge the administration to use all possible means to secure Austin's safe return home. I am thankful to the Trump administration, as I am to the Obama administration, and I have met with them both about Austin's case.

I know the former administration of President Obama and the current administration of President Trump share my desire to see Austin come home as soon as possible, but we need to take a step back and realize why people like Austin are taken hostage in the first place. In many parts of the world, authoritarian regimes and criminal nonstate actors see a free press as a threat--an existential threat. They don't want to risk a spotlight exposing human rights abuses, lies, corruption, and graft. They want to inoculate themselves from criticism and bury the truth so it never sees the light of day.

In places like Turkey, Syria, China, and elsewhere, journalists are silenced and often jailed, sometimes even killed. We have seen this to the south of our border in Mexico, too, with drug cartels and criminal syndicates that don't like the scrutiny that a free press provides on their illicit activities.

According to organizations like Reporters Without Borders, 2017 was perhaps the most dangerous year on record for journalists, and 2018 is not expected to be any different. We need to be aware of this and constantly vigilant to do our part to ensure journalists' safety and the flourishing of freedom of the press everywhere it can possibly exist.

So, to Austin's parents, I pledge: I will never give up until we find your son and bring him home safely. This week, we will pass another milestone--6 years--but hope that in the near future, the next milestone will be the day that marks Austin's return to the United States and to his family.

Madam President, on a separate note, this week, we will continue the confirmation process for the nominee to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, I am talking about Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

This last weekend, the Senate Judiciary Committee released to the public another enormous batch of records from Judge Kavanaugh's service as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House. It also released another 21,000 pages just last night. The office of President Bush has now produced more than 174,000 pages of material to the committee, and, of course, that is on top of the judge's judicial record, which has already been produced to the committee.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House has turned over more than 195,000 documents on Judge Kavanaugh--significantly more than were produced for either Justice Kagan or Justice Gorsuch. As Chairman Grassley has pointed out, it is the largest cumulative production of executive branch material ever received in the course of evaluating a Supreme Court nominee.

These records, of course, are being reviewed as they are produced, in addition to the 307 opinions or cases in which Judge Kavanaugh wrote an opinion as an appeals court judge, as well as the hundreds more opinions that he joined as a member of the panel.

Once upon a time, our Democratic friends said that these opinions and cases were what mattered the most--not extraneous paper that bears no relevance to the judge's qualification or that he even had any input in. Perhaps our friend, the Democratic leader, remembers the standard he set with regard to documents during Justice Sotomayor's confirmation. He appropriately pointed out, ``It is the judicial record, more than speeches and statements, more than personal background, that most accurately measures how modest a judicial nominee will be.''

Of course, at the time, the discussion was whether judges respected their unique role in our government, one that came to be described as a modest role--in other words, not primarily as a policymaker. The point is, I agree with the comments made by our friend Senator Schumer that it is the judicial record that tells us the most about how a judge will perform once elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At another point, the Democratic leader said, with regard to then- Judge Sotomayor that ``we've heard precious little about the body and totality of your 17-year record on the bench, which everybody knows is the best way to evaluate a nominee.'' Again, I agree with him.

In one final instance, addressing Judge Sotomayor, he said: ``I want to turn to your record on the bench, which I believe is the best way to get a sense of what your record will be on the bench in the future.'' Again, that is common sense.

Well, you heard it: The best way to get a sense for how a judge will perform in the future is how he or she has performed on the bench in the past, and that is according to our friend, Senator Schumer--not me, although I agree with him.

As I said, Democrats have 12 years' worth of cases and opinions from Judge Kavanaugh, and I hope they have started to look at them, but I am not so sure that is the case. I believe 20 Democrats have already come out against the nominee, so, apparently, they don't need to see anything else in order to reach a conclusion, and, as I have noted in the past, five of them came out against the nominee before he was even nominated, indicating, of course, that they would oppose anyone nominated by this President.

Now they have turned their tactics to making requests for more and more documents, even while the Washington Post describes their campaign to block Kavanaugh as ``fizzling.'' The article said that our Democratic colleagues have all but acknowledged they are unable to prevent the confirmation, so you might ask: Why the paper chase?

The real answer is, that is all they have left. The Archivist, appointed by former President Obama, has stated that he cannot, nor can any current Archivist, change the law or longstanding and consistent practices when it comes to document production. There is no end run around this process. Of course, the Senate already has most, if not all, of the documents we need--many more, as I mentioned, than they had for either Justices Gorsuch or Kagan. What is going on exactly? I think I have indicated my opinion. It is all they have left.

During the time we were away from Washington this last week, Chairman Grassley said the confirmation hearing for Judge Kavanaugh will begin on September 4, which will be 57 days after President Trump's announcement of the nomination. This is entirely consistent with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Hearings for those nominees occurred 48 or 49 days after the President's announcement.

We continue to hear new lines of attack developing or, I should say, trying to develop. One I have heard involved Judge Kavanaugh's role as Staff Secretary in the White House--an important job, to be sure, but one more like a traffic cop--in this case, for documents--than a substantive policymaker. As Staff Secretary, he didn't contribute to the documents. He didn't make the policy articulated in the documents. He just made sure they made their way, properly vetted, through the White House, to the President's desk for his signature. That is what the Staff Secretary does.

Others have said they wonder what role Judge Kavanaugh played in developing administration policy regarding detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists. I will answer that for them. The answer is none.

We have heard a few other objections being tossed around, and I will continue to address those in the coming days and weeks. Today I think the last word should go to a self-described liberal, feminist lawyer-- that is what she called herself--who has argued more

cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other woman. In POLITICO, she wrote recently, with regard to Judge Kavanaugh, ``Sometimes a superstar is just a superstar.'' She said our Democratic colleagues should ``stop pretending that Kavanaugh or his record is the issue.'' She went on to say he is well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity, and is within the mainstream of legal thought.

Her last words were the most emphatic. She said: ``Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh--full stop.'' She said their behavior is ``unbecoming,'' and I don't disagree with her.

We know many on the other side are not particularly interested in the nominee's qualifications. As I said, for some, the fact that President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh is all they need to know. They are opposed to anybody and everybody this President might nominate. Others have now come out in opposition before they have examined these, perhaps approaching, 1 million pages of documents that will be produced. Again, it is obvious it is not material to their decision because they have already announced their opposition. They don't even want to wait until the hearing where the judge will be questioned and provide answers to the committee's questions.

We know there is not much to attack when it comes to the judge's long judicial record of objectivity and fairness on the DC Circuit. They are trying to dig through other people's emails and conduct a government- sponsored, taxpayer-funded fishing expedition through the records of the entire Bush White House: If we can't find anything wrong with the nominee, let's distract people by raising other issues by digging through the papers of the Bush White House.

As I said, I call this the great paper chase. It may result in a never-ending tower of cardboard boxes. Ultimately, it gets us nowhere, and it costs all of us a great deal of time and effort and accomplishes nothing.

The truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and well respected by everybody who knows him. Having met the judge in 2000, when I served as attorney general of Texas, where he helped me get ready for my oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, I have known the judge and followed his career since that time.

I agree that he is not only eminently qualified, but he is well respected by all those who know him, including me. I look forward to confirming Justice Kavanaugh before the Supreme Court begins its next term at the beginning of October.

I yield floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator

from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. President, earlier this summer I was privileged to be at the White House when President Trump announced his nominee to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court became effective just a couple of days ago. Judge Kavanaugh's nomination continues the streak that we Republicans in the Senate have been on for the last 18 months under the Trump administration. We have set new records.

Specifically, we set a record last year for the most circuit court judges confirmed in a President's first year, and we set a new record this year with the recent confirmation of President Trump's 23rd circuit judge, Texan Andy Oldham, who will serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that was 2 weeks ago.

Keep in mind that we have already set the record with the most judges confirmed in the President's first 2 years, and we still have 5 months to go. That is unprecedented. That is huge. It speaks volumes about the seriousness with which this administration takes its responsibility to fill vacancies on the Federal judiciary and the efficiency with which this Chamber is carrying out its duty to provide advice and consent.

Yesterday, we voted on another outstanding nominee, Britt Grant, for the Eleventh Circuit. To date, the Senate has confirmed 45 Federal judges under President Trump, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, and that includes 24 circuit court or intermediate level judges.

But some people don't like to focus on that record of accomplishment so much. They like to dwell on Judge Kavanaugh, the nominee to succeed Anthony Kennedy, exclusively instead. I understand why the Supreme Court vacancy is a very big deal, but it doesn't give license to engage in hysterical attacks.

We have seen Judge Kavanaugh called almost every name in the book. We have heard that his confirmation would result in the destruction of the Constitution and that the nominee is your worst nightmare and one who wants to pave the path to tyranny.

Well, I just think those sorts of attacks--and hysterical attacks-- undermine the very credibility of the speaker, because anybody who knows anything about Judge Kavanaugh knows that none of that is true. We are not going to be distracted from carrying out the confirmation process in the normal established way through the Judiciary Committee first, led by Chairman Grassley, and, then, once we get to the floor, with a debate and vote to confirm the judge, hopefully, well in advance of the next term of the Supreme Court, which begins the first Monday in October.

We know, for example, that Chairman Grassley has already sent a request to the Bush Library to recover many of the records that pertain to the nominee's service when he worked at the White House Counsel's Office. This was a unilateral request, unfortunately, because our Democratic colleagues refused to join us, even after two weeks of negotiations and trying to find a way both sides could agree. This is, unfortunately, another sign of obstruction, which is basically all that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this nomination have left.

Many of the Democrats on the other side have made clear that they really aren't interested in the nominee's qualifications. As I mentioned previously, five of them came out against the nominee before he was even named, in other words, taking the position that the person nominated by President Trump would not be able to earn their support. Fifteen more, after the nominee was named, came out in opposition. So 20 Democrats have already announced their opposition to the nominee without even taking a few moments even to meet with the judge or getting to learn a little more about his record.

Unfortunately, the role that so many of our friends across the aisle want the judiciary to play is that they are really interested in judges who basically will be results-oriented. In other words, rather than be impartial umpires and call balls and strikes regardless of who is at bat, what they want is somebody who will put the thumb on the scales of justice and reach a preordained result.

But that is not the way judges are supposed to serve under our form of government. Judges don't run for election. They have lifetime tenure. So they are not politically accountable for their decisions at the ballot box like those of us in the political branches of government are.

So some of the rhetoric, as I said earlier, is just over the top. One of our colleagues even said that you would be complicit and evil if you supported this nomination.

Well, we need to be aware of the double standard that applies. There is a stark contrast between Judge Kavanaugh and the confirmation process of Justice Kagan. This time around, our Democratic colleagues requested every single scrap of paper that made its way across the nominee's desk, even when he did not contribute to the policy or content of those documents.

At the time when Justice Kagan was nominated, about 173,000 pages of documents were produced from the time that she worked in the White House Counsel's Office and on the Domestic Policy Council. She and Judge Kavanaugh share in common the fact that they worked in the White House Counsel's Office.

But the difference between Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Kagan is that Justice Kagan didn't have any public judicial record at all. Just compare that to Judge Kavanaugh's 12 years of serving on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. He has more than 300 written opinions for Members to review and ascertain what kind of judge he would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I am surprised that our Democratic friends are asking for so many documents that are clearly immaterial, because during the nominee's 2006 confirmation hearing for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, our colleagues did not ask for any documents, which they are now demanding, and specifically, those that came across his desk when he served in the important function of White House Staff Secretary. This is, perhaps, a little understood office, but basically it is an administrative position, where Judge Kavanaugh, at the time, as Staff Secretary at the White

House, was responsible for making sure that the documents presented to the President for review had been properly vetted and were in good form. That is the responsibility--not to provide input in terms of the policy or the content of those documents. So he really was more or less a traffic cop for the paper flow across the President's desk. As such, those documents would have no bearing whatsoever on the judge's qualifications or experience and are unnecessary to produce for this confirmation process.

Just as with Justice Kagan's confirmation, there was a bipartisan understanding in 2006, during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, that certain documents are unnecessary and should be off limits. In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh responded to the standard questionnaire for appellate nominees. Our Democratic colleagues didn't complain about that at the time. In fact, at Judge Kavanaugh's hearing in 2006, Senator Feinstein, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that ``without a record either as a trial lawyer or as a judge, it's very difficult for some of us to know what kind of judge you would be and whether you can move away from the partisanship and into that arena of objectivity and fairness.'' But now our friend from California has 12 years of judicial service and more than 300 opinions she and others--all of us--can review to answer the very questions she said she needed to answer.

So my question is, why are our colleagues across the aisle suddenly claiming they need every email, every memo, and every Post-it note that went across the nominee's desk? Well, we know the reason is because they cannot attack Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record of objectivity and fairness on the DC Circuit. Instead, they are trying to dig through other people's emails and documents and conduct a government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded fishing expedition through the records of the entire Bush White House. I call this the great paper chase.

You have heard us warn that the Democrats' demands for every document from Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House is nothing more than a stall tactic. Several media reports over the last few days have now confirmed that this is, in fact, their exact strategy. Here is a statement from the San Francisco Chronicle: ``Feinstein, other Senate Dems have plan on Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Stall.''

Their broader, coordinated strategy is to delay and stall, not actually vet, the nominee. So for most of them, it really won't matter that Judge Kavanaugh will have more documents produced before his confirmation than any other nominee in American history; it won't matter that some documents have already been released--for example, from his tenure working for the independent counsel; it won't matter that the process is fully transparent and thorough because they have already made up their minds.

To be clear, overwhelmingly, our Democratic colleagues are simply not interested in vetting Judge Kavanaugh because they have already made up their minds to vote against the nomination. I hope the three or four or five Democrats who are still open-minded to confirmation of the judge will encourage their other colleagues to change their approach and to make sure they do what we are required to do under the Constitution once the President has made a nomination like this, and that is to provide advice and consent, not just obstruction and delay and resistance.

Many of the excuses they are now giving, particularly with regard to documents, are merely smokescreens for their true goal, which, as we see here in the San Francisco Chronicle, is simply to stall, stall, stall. They have telegraphed this strategy in the press, and they have made it clear that it is their only shot at blocking this mainstream nominee, because the truth is that Judge Kavanaugh is imminently qualified and well respected by all who know him.

I believe it is our responsibility to continue to vet the nominee and to continue to encourage Members to meet with him and to continue their review of his record--particularly in the last 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--because I am convinced that if they do that, they will be willing to support the nominee, if they have an open mind and if they haven't already engaged in the political calculation to oppose the nominee no matter what the reason may be.

I look forward to confirming the judge early this fall. Chairman Grassley has said he hopes to have a hearing on the nomination and then a vote on the Senate floor in advance of the October term of the Supreme Court. I look forward to helping him keep that schedule and confirming this good man and fine judge to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last week the House passed an important piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Perkins Act. It was sent to the President's desk for his signature and, once that happens today, it will become the law of the land.

I want to take just a moment to talk about part of it because it has huge implications for my State and the United States. It is called the New HOPE Act, and it builds on other steps we have taken recently to strengthen our Nation's economy. Specifically, it deals with this phenomenon of occupational licensing.

State licensing mandates require men and women to pay fees, complete training programs, and pass exams before they can enter certain jobs and

professions, but many of these licensing requirements are simply protectionism. They do nothing to protect consumers or ensure the public safety. They simply protect the incumbents' interests and erect large barriers to entry. They make it more difficult for new folks to learn and practice new trades and preserve exclusive access to those who have the means and the time necessary to jump through all the procedural and financial hoops.

Existing licensing rules perpetuate the status quo and stifle new talent. Oftentimes, they are totally unnecessary, as you may have gathered from my comments, and certainly burdensome. When that happens, they need to be eliminated.

Last year in Austin, I had a chance to meet with people in the cosmetology, heating and ventilation, and other industries, and we talked about how licensing requirements impact their industries, as well as job creation, upward mobility, and public safety.

Around that same time, the Institute for Justice ranked Texas licensure requirements as the 17th most burdensome in the country. That is not a statistic I am proud of. So, naturally, we spoke about ways we can reduce the burden on job seekers.

That is where the bill I sponsored comes in, the New HOPE Act, which is part of this Perkins reauthorization bill. It provides additional authority to State Governors receiving funds for career and technical education. It gives them discretion to consolidate or eliminate licenses or certifications that provide limited consumer protection or pose an unnecessary and sometimes insurmountable barrier to entry for aspiring men and women seeking to enter certain professions. If you want to be a hairdresser or an eyebrow threader or a roofer or a mortician, we should support you 100 percent. We shouldn't condone the erection of barriers to your entering this profession once you have satisfied the necessary and important qualifications and training. There are certain training steps that are a good idea, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but you shouldn't have to wait for years and waste thousands of dollars in order to get there. That is what this bill is all about.

I am grateful to my Democratic cosponsor, the junior Senator from Michigan, as well as the bill's champions over in the House, Representative Walberg and Representative Cuellar. We couldn't have gotten this done without them. I look forward to the President's signature. I know that once it becomes law, it will work to further enhance the positive economic climate that we have seen under this administration, with the jaw-dropping announcement of last Friday that the economy is burning so hot that the gross domestic product has gone up by 4.1 percent in the last quarter alone.

There are many steps to turning this economy around. One of the biggest, of course, was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which we passed last year and which has had transformative effects. So I am optimistic that legislation like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will continue to allow getting out of the way of the people who are creating opportunity and growing the economy and wages and take-home pay.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, yesterday, during the lunch hour, Kevin Hassett, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, brought a number of charts and a very welcomed message, which was that the American economy is very strong and that many of the predictions that have been made during the course of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act debate have proven to be true--the positive comments. The negative comments have proven to be false in terms of what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would do to restart this great economic engine known as the American economy.

Back home in Texas, we issued our monthly employment report, and it included good news, which I would also like to share. First, Texas created 27,000 new jobs in June. That is a whole lot of people who are moving up, pursuing new opportunities, and moving into our State from places in which they don't have those opportunities. A single new job can mean a lot of things in a person's life, but at the very least, it means a fresh start, a chance to be challenged, to grow, and to put a few extra dollars in the bank. Now multiply the 27,000 new jobs by 12, and you can see that the impact on workers, families, and our entire State is huge.

I am glad to say that this is the 24th consecutive month of job growth in Texas, and the folks I have talked to around the State in places like College Station, Austin, and Amarillo, just to name a few, are pretty excited. They are also relieved. They are relieved that the Texas unemployment rate continues to decline and are excited that once again we have been called the top State for business. All told, Texas has added 360,000 new jobs over the last 12 months. That is 360,000 new jobs in Texas over the last 12 months.

Mayor Jerry Morales of Midland, TX, who is also the owner of several restaurants there, said recently: ``This economy is on fire.'' Apparently the fire has reached as far as his kitchen because he is having trouble retaining cooks at his restaurant. In other words, the economy is running strong, unemployment is low, and the labor participation rate continues to go up, but employers are having a hard time finding qualified workers to perform the good, well-paying jobs that do exist. That is exactly what a competitive labor market looks like. Other employers in the Permian Basin around Midland have doubled the previous pay of new employees because of the competitive labor market there. Those are just a couple of stories in one area of my State. There are many more.

I continue to hear from my constituents about the positive impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--landmark legislation we enacted at the end of last year. Just to remind everybody, we cut tax rates; we doubled the standard deduction, meaning that fewer people will actually have to fill out the long-form tax return; and we doubled the child tax credit. What is more, we encouraged companies that had billions of dollars in cash parked overseas that they didn't want to see taxed twice to bring that money back home, and they have been bringing hundreds of billions of dollars of money previously parked overseas back here to the United States and putting it to work.

Earlier this summer, we hit the 6-month anniversary of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. During that time, I have heard from men and women--William Alderman, for example. Mr. Alderman is a retired, disabled soldier who said that the new tax law increased his monthly income enough to ease the rising cost of his living expenses. Maybe that will not make headlines in the New York Times or the Washington Post, but that is a big deal to Mr. Alderman. I heard from Kim Ewing in Mesquite, who hadn't seen a pay raise in 7 years. Now she has one, and you can imagine she is grateful for it. She wrote that she is glad her Federal Government is finally getting what she calls a little ``common sense.''

The good news is not limited to Texas. We have seen the country on fire when it comes to our economy. We have seen newfound optimism and confidence in the future. That is a good thing because during the preceding 8 years, before the current administration, before we had done this, we had been told that we have to accept slow growth and stagnant wages as the new normal. We know that is not true because people can hope for and aspire and work for better, and with the right policies in place, they can be rewarded more generously for their hard work and their diligence and their self-discipline.

We have also heard from large companies in large cities. We have heard from small businesses in small cities. We have heard that some of the big businesses are handing out bonuses and raises and 401(k) increases. We have heard about the effects in some of our rural areas and the effects on people who sometimes get overlooked in the national conversation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a report showing that the estimated effective tax rates declined for all farms of all sizes and that farm households could pay close to 20 percent less in taxes. During a time of tough commodity prices, that is welcome news, that their bill to the Federal Government--Uncle Sam--is going to go down by 20 percent.

Unsurprisingly, most Americans now believe that economic conditions are good or excellent and that the economy is improving. As I said, optimism is high. To be specific, it is at a 14-year high.

After years of stagnant wage growth, after the previous administration ignored the plight of the average American worker and paid short shrift to his or her real circumstances--the bills they had to pay, the salary they earned each month--it is about time somebody got the message that Kim Ewing was talking about. In her words, this Congress got a little bit of ``common sense'' and passed the first major overhaul of the Tax Code in 30 years. Was it perfect? Well, of course, not. Are we still working to make those reforms bigger and better? Absolutely. But the main point is that we knew that American workers elected us to actually do something, not to just talk about it, and we sure weren't going to turn our backs on their everyday concerns, things they talk about around the kitchen table.

What are the results 6 months later? The United States as a whole added 213,000 jobs in June--more than expected. Average hourly earnings are up close to 3 percent. Manufacturers are more optimistic than at any other time in modern history. It is not just me saying it; it is the chief economist of the National Association of Manufacturers.

This week, Leader McConnell has been talking a lot about the difference between rhetoric--what President Obama offered--and the results we have been able to deliver. I agree with that contrast. As the majority leader put it, all of us agree with the rhetoric about creating jobs, ``[b]ut not everybody supported the policy agenda that's helped deliver results for the

American people.'' That is a chronic problem here in Washington, DC-- saying one thing and doing another. So we not only tried to say the right thing, we tried to do the right thing by the American people, and I think we have succeeded.

Unfortunately, like so much of what happens here in Washington, DC, even creating this newfound optimism, this confidence in the future, more take-home pay, and a lower tax burden--in spite of those benefits, it still surprises me that not a single Democrat voted for tax reform. It was a party-line vote. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted against tax reform. I bet the commonsense men and women, such as Kim Ewing, the lady from Mesquite, TX, whom I mentioned, are taking note.

(Mrs. FISCHER assumed the Chair.)

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, on to one more topic, earlier this month, I was privileged to be at the White House when President Trump announced whom he would nominate to serve in the seat being vacated by Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The President had a great roster of judges to choose from, but he settled on Brett Kavanaugh, who I have been here on the floor saying I believe is a stellar pick.

His nomination continues what we in the Senate have been doing in the last 18 months--voting on well-qualified nominees to fill the Federal bench, and we have been confirming them at a record pace. These are people who, by definition, will serve for a lifetime. That is what Federal judges do in our country. They have life tenure. They are not subject to election, and they get the independence that goes along with it and a unique job in our system of government of calling balls and strikes, applying the law to the facts of an individual case. It is an incredibly important role to play.

Sadly, during the discussion about Judge Kavanaugh that we will take up here soon--it increasingly appears that some of our Democratic colleagues aren't particularly interested in the qualifications of the nominee. They don't seem particularly interested in whether they will or will not rule in accordance with the law and the Constitution as written. Instead, they have made very clear that they are looking for judges whose views line up with the political opinions and views of the Democratic Party.

I am glad to see that a few of them are breaking rank. The minority leader has issued an edict to his Members saying: Don't meet with the judge until we work out something on the documents that we want to see from his time working at the White House Counsel's Office, as Staff Secretary, or as a member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But fortunately some of the Democrats have broken rank and decided that they want to visit with the judge, which I think is entirely appropriate.

As I said, the minority leader wants to get into a contest over how many documents are going to be produced. Well, let me put this in context. Our Democratic colleagues have requested at least 1 million pages of documents on Judge Kavanaugh. How many were produced for Justice Kagan, who sits on the Supreme Court? Well, it is about 173,000 pages versus 1 million. Like Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Kagan actually worked at the White House, at the White House Counsel's Office.

But what strikes me as so ironic and maybe just a little bit hypocritical is that when Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, they didn't want to see any of those documents. They couldn't have cared less. Now, all of a sudden, they have become the most important things in the world they could get their hands on during this confirmation process. That ought to tell us something.

As I mentioned, the minority leader has told his colleagues to stop meeting with the judge, but a few have broken rank, and I know Judge Kavanaugh is grateful for their political courage.

Our colleague from Indiana, the senior Senator, said that he ``always'' planned to meet with Judge Kavanaugh. The junior Senator from Delaware said that ``of course'' he will meet with the nominee. And the senior Senators from West Virginia and North Dakota have said they will too. Good for them. I hope this means that the dam of resistance is finally breaking and that more of our colleagues across the aisle will follow suit. I am sure they will learn something by visiting with Judge Kavanaugh, and I am sure they will be impressed, as I was when I met with the nominee and heard more of his story, because the truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and well respected by everybody who knows him.

I look forward to voting both in the Judiciary Committee and then on the floor of the U.S. Senate early this fall and confirming him for the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy's retirement.

I yield the floor.