Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am a day late with the news, but Justice Anthony Kennedy, of course, announced he is leaving the bench at the end of the month, and I would be remiss if I didn't start my remarks this morning by thanking him for his 40- plus years of service to this country on the Federal bench.

He has presided over and authored the majority opinion in many high- stakes cases of national importance. As the news has pointed out, after Sandra Day O'Connor left the Court, he has been that pivotal fifth vote in a lot of really significant cases, which is to say, you can't really typecast Justice Kennedy, but I do believe he has remained committed to upholding the integrity of the legal system throughout the course of his career.

I can say, as a former State supreme court justice myself, I know the work he has been doing has been painstaking, time-consuming, and extraordinarily important all at the same time. So I express my gratitude, on behalf of my constituents, to Justice Kennedy for his willingness, ability, and determination to carry out that work.

While serving on the Supreme Court for the last three decades, after having been appointed by President Reagan, he has furthered the pursuit of American justice, one case at a time, which is exactly what Justices are supposed to do, through calm times and politically turbulent times--perhaps, some might say, times like the present. He recognizes that our core institutions are essentially democratic institutions, answerable to the people through their elected representatives.

While the Court has a unique role in interpreting the Constitution-- which is the fundamental bedrock law of the Nation--in cases that don't turn on the constitutionality of the statute, it is important to defer to decisions made by the elected representatives of the people because we are the ones accountable to the electorate for those decisions. Judges, by their nature, are not because they aren't elected. They don't run for election. So their fidelity is supposed to be to the law and not to a personal agenda or politics or any other agenda.

Justice Kennedy was an important member of the Court that recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and recently upheld the President's prerogatives to protect national security.

As Justice Kennedy concludes his term this next month, we, of course, wish him well, along with his wife Mary and their children, and we wish them many more happy--and, hopefully, a little less stressful--years together.

Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

Meanwhile, the Senate will conduct our constitutional role of offering our advice and consent on whomever President Trump nominates. As the senior Senator from Connecticut said yesterday, ``The Senate should do nothing to artificially delay'' consideration of the next Justice. I have heard conflicting views, but I agree with the senior Senator from Connecticut.

This is consistent with the standard set by former President Obama and Vice President Biden. In 2010--which was a midterm election--Senate Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the court, Elena Kagan. Before that, when he was a Senator, Joe Biden argued that Supreme Court nominees should not be confirmed during Presidential election years. So one was a midterm, Elena Kagan. Merrick Garland-- whom we will hear more about from our Senate Democratic colleagues-- came up during a Presidential election, a time during which Joe Biden said that nominees should not be confirmed in the runup to a Presidential election.

After President Trump makes his selection, Senators will have the opportunity to meet with the nominee, examine his or her qualifications, and debate them. We will have a hearing under the Senate Judiciary Committee. This will be the sixth Supreme Court Justice nominee I will have had the privilege to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee for and question. Then, this fall, we will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor.

Justice Kennedy placed a deadline on his time in office. He is retiring July 31. So any idea of delaying this and leaving the Court shorthanded, particularly under these circumstances, really is beside the point.

I know Chairman Grassley will, as usual, manage a fair, thorough, and efficient confirmation process. He always does. It is crucial that as this process begins to unfold, the President's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from an increasingly agitated and vitriolic political base.

My philosophy on the role of a judge is simple: Decisions should not be made on the basis of the judge's personal beliefs but from the analysis of legal doctrine and actual reading of the legal texts. The President, I believe, understands that. That is the sort of model out of which Neil Gorsuch's nomination came. That is also why we confirmed so many of his excellent choices in the 18 months of his administration.

I look forward to another outstanding selection and a thorough and efficient confirmation process. Then, in the end, we will vote to confirm the President's nominee this fall.

Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act

Mr. President, on a separate note, yesterday, the White House released a statement from President Trump regarding an important piece of bipartisan legislation, which I introduced with the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act or FIRRMA.

This concerns, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Our adversaries around the world have simply figured ways to game foreign investment in the United States to get access to intellectual property and the know-how to duplicate that property surreptitiously, taking advantage of the gaps in the Committee on Foreign Investment's jurisdiction. So we are updating that legislation. It passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee, passed then out of the Armed Services Committee, and now is a part of the Senate-passed Defense authorization bill.

As President Trump mentioned, this bill will enhance our ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats posed by foreign investment while, at the same time, preserving our ability to engage in international commerce and create new opportunities benefiting our economy and our people.

Let me make clear, this is not to discourage foreign investment. I think foreign investment is a good thing, but when our adversaries look to exploit gaps and antiquated language in some of our statutes in order to gain unfair advantage and seek access to intellectual property in dual-use technology that has national security implications, we need to act, and that is what we have done.

The President concluded that FIRRMA will provide much needed tools to combat the predatory investment practices that threaten our critical technology and national security. I think he is exactly right, and I am glad he pledged to implement FIRRMA promptly and enforce it rigorously once it is enacted into law.

I wish to express my appreciation to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin--who is the convening authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--and the entire Cabinet for their input and their support for what we are trying to do.

I will read a couple paragraphs because it was pretty strong. The President of the United States said:

Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that better protects the crown jewels of American technology and intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that threaten our national security--and future economic prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so globally.

What the President is saying, and what was reinforced by Secretary Mnuchin in my conversations with him, is the President is depending on this bipartisan legislation being enacted into law and providing the tools necessary to protect our national security. If Congress, for some reason, stumbles and fails to pass this legislation, the President has made clear he intends to act unilaterally to fill that void.

I applaud the President and this administration for giving Congress a chance to work with the administration to fill this gap through a bipartisan, bicameral legislative process and to not just leap into that void and try to do it unilaterally, perhaps causing more confusion and less predictability.

In conclusion, the President said:

I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to protect America's security and prosperity.

The Senate bill we passed takes a carefully tailored approach, and the House passed a similar version earlier this week by a vote of 400 to 2.

I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the Senate- House conference process to ensure the CFIUS review process is sufficiently strengthened and meets the goals that we and the President share.

Accordingly, I directed the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other senior executive branch officials, to report to me regarding appropriate measures to address these concerns.

I have been advised by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, among others, that Congress has made significant progress toward passing legislation that will modernize our tools for protecting the Nation's critical technologies from harmful foreign acquisitions. This legislation, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), will enhance our ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats posed by foreign investment while also sustaining the strong, open investment environment to which our country is committed and which benefits our economy and our people.

After reviewing the current versions of FIRRMA with my team of advisors--and after discussing them with many Members of Congress--I have concluded that such legislation will provide additional tools to combat the predatory investment practices that threaten our critical technology leadership, national security, and future economic prosperity. Therefore, upon enactment of FIRRMA legislation, I will direct my Administration to implement it promptly and enforce it rigorously, with a view toward addressing the concerns regarding state-directed investment in critical technologies identified in the Section 301 investigation.

Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that better protects the crown jewels of American technology and intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that threaten our national security--and future economic prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so globally.

To further ensure a robust defense of American technology and intellectual property, I have also directed the Secretary of Commerce to lead an examination of issues related to the transfer and export of critical technologies. Through this review, we will assess our Nation's export controls and make any modifications that may be needed to strengthen them to defend our national security and technological leadership. Additionally, I have directed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the United States Trade Representative to engage with our allies and partners to support their efforts to combat harmful technology transfer and intellectual property theft.

I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to protect America's security and prosperity.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source