Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was greatly encouraged to hear yesterday's announcement by the administration that the United States, Mexico, and Canada have now successfully come to a trilateral agreement to modernize NAFTA.

As the Presiding Officer knows, this is important not only to border States like ours; this is important to the entire country. About 5 million jobs in the United States depend on binational trade with Mexico, and about 8 million depend on binational trade with Canada. So this is really important to our country and, I think, will hopefully calm a lot of anxiety over some of the various trade disputes that we have had recently.

Based on the deal reached Sunday, Canada will now join a pact with the United States and Mexico agreed to in August. The newly named United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will greatly benefit North American commerce and modernize areas where our economy has evolved since the 1990s.

When we think about what life was like back in the 1990s, digital commerce was unheard of; oil and gas exploration using modern techniques like fracking and horizontal drilling, which have produced the shale energy revolution in the United States, didn't exist back then; and, of course, as many of my friends in the energy business tell me, the shale we produce oil and gas from in the United States doesn't stop at the Rio Grande.

Mexico has opened up its economy, greatly allowing foreign investment and embracing some of these modern techniques, which will, I think, have a revolutionary impact on Mexico and its economy. My guiding mantra over the last year for these negotiations has been what is known as the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take: First, do no harm. That is what Ambassador Lighthizer and Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, told the Finance Committee when they were confirmed.

I argue that we have to fix NAFTA to be sure because after 24 years, parts of it are outdated, as I said, but not nix it entirely. Although, we are still reviewing the fine print of the agreement, I think we should be proud of what has been accomplished.

Since last August, Ambassador Lighthizer and his team at USTR, the U.S. Trade Representative, have negotiated for countless hours with our southern and northern neighbors. The road to an updated agreement has not been easy, but I believe those efforts will pay off, and soon the responsibility will be ours in the Senate to vote on this agreement. It will be a few months off, to be sure, but we will have a role in voting on the agreement.

As President Trump said, the new agreement will fix deficiencies in the original NAFTA, reduce trade barriers and open markets for U.S. farmers and manufacturers. I am particularly hearing a lot from my folks in the agriculture sector in Texas that they are excited with some of the negotiations with Canada with regard to agriculture. It modernizes rules for dairy and auto and financial services, as well as many others. The agriculture sector that I think was most concerned about some of these negotiations is breathing a giant sigh of relief.

This is a significant development in our trade policy and a great testament to the productive diplomacy the administration has been engaged in since day one. Sometimes it may seem a little bit like a bull in a China shop, but when you produce good results, maybe that is worth it.

Promises were made to update NAFTA, of course, as long as our neighbors collaborated in good faith, and those promises now appear to have been kept. As I have said, millions of Americans' jobs are supported by trade with Mexico and Canada.

In Texas, NAFTA has been one of the cornerstones of our economy, which helped cause us to create more jobs than any other State in the country in recent years. We have the second largest State economy in the United States, so Mexico, being our top import and export partner, obviously, has implications that are big not only to us but truly national and, I believe, international in scope.

Over the course of the last quarter century since NAFTA was signed, we have reaped benefits in terms of jobs, income, and cultural exchange. These benefits are so significant and widespread that they can't be fully measured. They are arguably why Texas has had more at stake than our 49 counterparts throughout the NAFTA reform process.

This new, enhanced agreement is a positive step. I thank Ambassador Lighthizer, as well as President Trump and all of our U.S., Canadian, and Mexican officials who were involved in crafting this document. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Finance Committee and all of our members on the Finance Committee, as well as the entire Senate, moving forward as we consider congressional implementation of this agreement.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. President, I wish to turn briefly to the ongoing confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. I have already said publicly on more than one occasion that this is a dark day; this is a dark period for the U.S. Senate. Never before have we seen a nominee to the Supreme Court or any court treated so badly, although we do know that starting with Robert Bork's confirmation hearing, the gloves came off, and these confirmation processes became, unfortunately, all too ugly.

As we know now, there has been a supplemental background investigation ordered by the FBI on allegations that were sprung on Judge Kavanaugh on the eve of his confirmation. There was never a whiff of these allegations during Judge Kavanaugh's six previous background investigations by the FBI and by the Judiciary Committee and other committees. I think it is telling that the aiders and abettors of this last-minute ambush include political operatives masquerading as disinterested lawyers with only their client's best wishes at heart.

This past Sunday, we heard from Rachel Mitchell, an investigative counsel from Arizona, who interviewed both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh at last week's hearing. I appreciate the professionalism with which she approached this job. It was not one that many would have sought because she knew, and we all knew, she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national debate and the circuslike atmosphere that, unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee had become. Yet she did do a public service. She was not pressured in any way to present her own analysis following the hearing, but she chose to do so. What she said, based on her experience as a sex crimes prosecutor, somebody who routinely deals with victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault--she has developed a lot of expertise and wisdom when it comes to approaching these kinds of cases. I think we were the beneficiaries, the country was the beneficiary, of her expertise and knowledge in the way she conducted her careful but respectful interrogation of Dr. Ford.

Her analysis contains crucial points that the FBI's background investigation may flesh out this week even further. First, she said this was not a case of he said, she said; this was a case of she said, they said. In other words, every witness alleged to have been present at the time Dr. Ford alleged that Judge Kavanaugh, when he was 17 years old, physically assaulted her said that they have no memory of such an event or knowledge of such an event. In one case, Dr. Ford's close friend, Leland Keyser, said that she doesn't even remember ever meeting Brett Kavanaugh. Similarly, Patrick Smyth and Mark Judge--two other alleged witnesses Dr. Ford named--said the event never happened. This is not just a case where there is an allegation and no corroboration; this is a case of an allegation and negative corroboration.

I mentioned Dr. Ford's lawyers earlier, and I want to return to that in just a moment. Some of their actions suggest they were more interested in using Dr. Ford for partisan purposes than ensuring her story was properly considered alongside other information during the standard committee process.

We all remember when Dr. Ford's hearing was delayed, the committee was informed by her lawyers that Dr. Ford's trauma prevented her from flying because she experienced claustrophobia. Then, during her testimony, watched by as many as 20 million people in this country, Dr. Ford said she flies frequently for hobbies and work. One has to wonder, why was this delay orchestrated? Was it a stunt concocted by her lawyers to buy more time? You have to wonder.

The truth is, her lawyers were involved long before that point. When the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, our colleague from California, met with Judge Kavanaugh one-on-one on August 20, she already knew about the allegation, which was dated July 30. On August 20, she met with Judge Kavanaugh. She had in her files an allegation dated July 30 that she shared with no one, and she didn't discuss it with Judge Kavanaugh during their private meeting. Instead, the ranking member recommended that Dr. Ford engage highly partisan operatives to represent her instead of referring the allegations to the FBI.

In other words, why would you take an allegation of sexual assault and keep it in your file and recommend the complainant contact politically active Democratic lawyers? Wouldn't it make sense to provide the allegation to the FBI right away so that the FBI could conduct whatever investigation it saw fit? Unfortunately, she neither presented that to the FBI on a timely basis, nor did she give Judge Kavanaugh a chance to refute it when she had plenty of opportunity to do so when he met with her in her office.

We know the lawyers who have been representing Dr. Ford have played an active role since early August. They were already engaged when Judge Kavanaugh sat through his initial weeklong confirmation hearing. By that point, the lawyers had already insisted that Dr. Ford take a polygraph, although they will not share with the Senate Judiciary Committee or with anybody else the underlying questions and interview. All they shared with us is the conclusion of the polygrapher. Yet none of this--the lawyers, the allegations, the steps being taken--were shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was initially assigned the responsibility of vetting the nominee through an extensive background investigation and, obviously, through the 1,200-some written questions for the record and the hours upon hours of hearings that everybody in the country could witness.

None of this came up at that first hearing, not even behind closed doors, which is the procedure by which sensitive personal matters are presented to the nominee if Senators on the Judiciary Committee have questions. What we actually try to do in the Senate is not to embarrass or harass or terrorize either the nominee or the witnesses who might have information relevant to the confirmation. We actually have a careful, respectful, and confidential process by which that information can first be supplied to the Judiciary Committee behind closed doors. That could and should have been the process used in this case, but it wasn't.

Here we are a few weeks later. We have had another hearing, at Dr. Ford's request, in which she shared her story to the best of her ability. I am actually glad she testified. That was her desire, although I believe she did not have to be put through the wringer the Senate Judiciary Committee has put her through. But that has not been our fault so much as it has been the fault of this orchestrated effort.

It is not fair to Judge Kavanaugh, I believe, to string this matter along further. It is not fair to his family, either, or to the many women who have stood with him every step of the way. This process has taken a toll on all of them and all of us.

Now that the FBI is doing a supplemental background investigation, which will conclude hopefully in the next few days, the allegation has been, well, the judge was so angry at the hearing defending his honor and good name against these allegations that this shows a lack of judicial temperament.

If you were accused falsely of committing a crime, wouldn't you be angry too? Wouldn't you want to clear your good name? That is exactly what Judge Kavanaugh did. I think it was a moving, emotional defense of his good name and character.

Our friends who are now making this accusation that somehow this demonstrates his lack of judicial temperament are ignoring his 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the fact the American Bar Association's Standing Committee that reviews these judicial nominees has found him unanimously ``well qualified,'' based in part on his good character and temperament. This is a red herring. You can't accuse somebody of a crime and expect them to sit there and take it. That is illogical, unreasonable.

Now the argument, too, is this: We really have the judge now; we have him. We caught him in some discrepancies--based on what? Based on his high school yearbook. Man, this has been quite an investigation if we are going back into somebody's high school yearbook and asking them to decipher things that would be, I think the judge said, cringeworthy that adolescent boys and adolescents do in their high school yearbook.

I guess this should be a lesson for all of our pages and others who are still in high school that if you have the opportunity to ascend to the highest Court in the land or other important responsibility, the U.S. Senate is going to go back and scour your high school yearbook and ask you about entries made not by you but by others in your yearbook.

This has become a national embarrassment. I said at the hearing that it reminded me of what I read about the McCarthy hearings. Joseph McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin was riding high upon the concerns the American people had about communists in government. He went too far, and at one point he was called down, ultimately left the Senate--was expelled from the Senate or resigned from the Senate; I can't remember which. He was asked by one of the lawyers who was representing a young man who was being interrogated who finally asked Senator McCarthy: I have had yet to gauge the depth of your cruelty and your recklessness. At long last, sir, have you no decency?

I recited those lines at the hearing for Judge Kavanaugh because I think, indeed, this whole process has been unfair to Dr. Ford, to Judge Kavanaugh. It has been cruel to the judge's family, and it has been reckless in the extreme. I think it has been an embarrassment. I think it is a stain on the reputation and the standing of the U.S. Senate.

So as the supplemental FBI investigation wraps up, let's be mindful of what our colleagues across the aisle have said they expected from this supplemental background investigation because they, too, understood we were approaching the end of this process. For example, the senior Senator from Minnesota said: ``Let's give this one week.'' She said that last Friday. She indicated her support for the investigation, even saying that we are all in a better spot now than we were before. Well, I hope that is still her position.

We had our colleagues across the aisle agree to both the timeline and the validity of this last step in Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. The junior Senator from Delaware, during the hearing, called for the same amount of time, just 1 more week. In a television interview, the junior Senator from Hawaii said that 7 days is enough time to ``get to the bottom'' of these allegations. So I hope our colleagues will remember their own words and their own statements, even though, as we all know, no supplemental information will change their vote.

This is, to me, the irony of where we find ourselves. I think it was Judge Kavanaugh who said a fair process starts with an open mind and then listening to both sides, but Judge Kavanaugh doesn't have a judge or jury in this confirmation process who has an open mind. All of the Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have said they unequivocally oppose his confirmation. So what do they expect this additional supplemental investigation to disclose that might possibly persuade them they were wrong?

Well, it is not about a search for the truth. This is about search and destroy. I have said this is what I hate most about Washington, DC--the political environment in which we find ourselves. It is not just about winning an argument. It is not just about winning an election or winning a vote in the Congress. It is about the politics of personal destruction. That is what we are seeing here. It is an orchestrated effort from start to finish. That is why I think this is such an embarrassment to the Senate. If we somehow decide that people can be essentially convicted of a crime based on an allegation with no evidence, what does that say about our commitment to the Constitution itself, the due process of law, and the presumption of guilt?

I know our colleagues will say: Well, this is a job interview. This is not just a job interview. This isn't just even about Judge Kavanaugh and his confirmation process. This is about us. This is about our national commitment to the Constitution, one that guarantees your liberty unless the government can come in and prove a case against you, where you have a chance to confront the witnesses against you, where you enjoy a presumption of innocence. This is no longer a job interview. This is no longer even just about Judge Kavanaugh.

A vote against Judge Kavanaugh implies that he is guilty not only of teenage misconduct but guilty of perjury now. That is what a vote against Judge Kavanaugh implies. A vote against Judge Kavanaugh is a ``yes'' vote for more search-and-destroy efforts against public servants and judicial nominees and more ambushing nominees after crucial information is withheld for weeks at a time.

We all know how the Senate operates. It operates on the basis of precedent. Once something has been done, it is precedent for what will be done in the future. If this is the new precedent for the U.S. Senate, woe be to us.

A vote against Kavanaugh is a ``yes'' vote for more of these despicable tactics being used time and time again in the future--coat hangers being sent to the offices of some our colleagues, fundraising bribes being offered, mobs attacking Senators and their families at restaurants.

The American people deserve a final and definitive resolution to this process. Judge Kavanaugh deserves the same, as does the Supreme Court. This week after the supplemental background investigation of the FBI concludes, there will be a vote. I trust that Judge Kavanaugh will then finally be confirmed. Then, hopefully, the Senate will come to its senses and realize how wrong, how embarrassing, and how disgraceful this process has been not only to Dr. Ford but to Judge Kavanaugh as well. I hope and pray we will come to our senses.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source