[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 162 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6406-S6408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak 
about an announcement that occurred last night that an agreement had 
been reached to modernize the North America Free Trade Agreement. The 
new agreement, named the ``United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement'' or 
``USMCA,'' will bring this trade pact between our countries into the 
21st century.
  Over the last year and a half, I have been working with my colleagues 
and others in the administration to make clear to President Trump, 
Ambassador Lighthizer, Secretary Ross, and my Senate colleagues of the 
importance of trade and exports--whether that was in meetings with the 
President and his Cabinet officials, through my subcommittee 
chairmanships, through speeches here on the Senate floor, or with many 
of my constituents in Kansas whose livelihoods depend on trade.
  I have written numerous letters to U.S. agricultural leaders and 
various agricultural organizations, followed up by speaking engagements 
across the country at the annual meetings of national farm and ranch 
groups to rally producers to fight to preserve trade relationships with 
Canada and Mexico.
  I have spent a lot of time in Kansas at nearly 100 townhall meetings 
in the last 2 years attended by various agriculture and commodity 
groups.
  I have talked to local media where folks are particularly interested 
at home about the issue of NAFTA and trade.
  In each of these instances, I was clear that withdrawing from NAFTA 
without a replacement agreement would be devastating to the Kansas 
economy. While NAFTA modernization was due to reflect changes in the 
economy since its enactment almost 25 years ago, the agreement has been 
critical to growth in agricultural exports and has created countless 
manufacturing jobs in my State.
  As a result of NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are two export markets that 
account for approximately 39 percent of total exports from Kansas. We, 
as Kansans, sell more aerospace parts and products to Canada than 
anywhere in the world and more food and commodities to Mexico than 
anywhere in the world.
  Importantly, the new agreement includes all three countries. As I 
conveyed to the President when the bilateral U.S.-Mexico agreement was 
announced, a final deal without Canada would be a significant step 
backward from the agreement in place today. I applaud President Trump 
for taking these concerns seriously and, while engaging in tough 
negotiations, recognizing the benefit of all three nations being 
included in the final agreement.
  The road ahead for this new agreement will not be easy. I am 
carefully reviewing the agreement's details and look forward to 
additional economic analysis on the impact it would have--particularly 
on Kansas but on farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers across our 
country and, equally of importance, the impact upon their employees.
  Once the President signs the agreement, it will be up to Congress to 
consider and vote to approve the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--most 
likely next year. However, today farmers and ranchers are breathing a 
sigh of relief, as the announcement brings greater certainty at a time 
when producers are facing extended periods of low commodity prices. 
Agricultural conditions in our State, due to drought and due to 
commodity prices and the uncertainty of export markets, are a 
significant challenge.
  Simply put, we produce more in this country than we can consume. 
Farmers, agricultural leaders, and commodity groups spend their own 
time and money developing export markets. We have many checkoff 
programs designed to encourage the sale of agriculture commodities from 
Kansas and the United States around the globe. Over a span of years and 
sometimes even decades, U.S. producers have built relationships with 
customers around the world based upon our ability to consistently 
deliver high-quality commodities at competitive prices. This agreement 
ought to inspire confidence in our purchasers in Mexico and Canada, as 
well as around the world, that America will continue to be a reliable 
supplier of food and agricultural commodities.
  Under the new agreement, all agricultural commodities that currently 
have duty-free access under NAFTA will continue. In addition, U.S. 
dairy producers who had a long, difficult time with Canada's supply 
management system will enjoy greater market access to the Canadian 
market.
  A trilateral agreement is also critical for aerospace, auto, and 
other manufacturers in Kansas who rely on an integrated North American 
supply chain. Withdrawing from NAFTA or excluding Canada from the 
agreement would have disrupted markets and cost Kansas jobs.
  I am hopeful that negotiations will continue with Canada and Mexico 
to resolve section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs that have raised 
prices for Kansas manufacturers and their customers, as well as 
resulted in retaliation against U.S. producers, including pork 
producers in Kansas.
  While I come to the floor to commend an agreement being reached on 
modernizing NAFTA, we have a lot of work to do to resolve current trade 
disputes while building new export markets.
  The trade dispute with China has harmed farmers and ranchers when 
they can least afford it. Producers have faced low prices and declining 
income for the better part of a decade. I remain concerned that if we 
lose major export markets, we will see a prolonged downturn in the 
prices instead of the recovery that is so desperately needed and 
desired.

[[Page S6407]]

  Since the start of the trade dispute with China, soybean prices have 
fallen over $2 per bushel, which equates to Kansas farmers and grain 
handlers losing out on $378 million of possible revenue solely on 
soybeans.
  Kansas is the top sorghum-producing State in the Nation. About half 
of the sorghum produced in the country is exported, with 90 percent of 
exports previously going to China. It is estimated that the decline in 
sorghum prices due to China's tariffs will result in about $87 of lost 
revenue per acre planted in Kansas.
  I have held two hearings to review the administration's trade 
policies in the Appropriations subcommittee that I chair--Commerce, 
Justice, Science--including a hearing with Ambassador Lighthizer. These 
hearings offered me and my colleagues the opportunity to express 
directly to the administration the importance of trade and for me to 
express the importance of trade to Kansas. As chairman of the CJS 
Subcommittee, I look forward to continuing to engage on the analysis 
and consideration of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and other trade 
issues.
  The ability of Kansans to make a living depends on the opportunity to 
sell around the world what we grow and produce and manufacture, and I 
will continue to urge in the direction of more trade, not less. I will 
also keep working to meet with farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, 
commodities groups, agricultural leaders, and organizations to make 
sure their voices are heard, and I will continue to be a component of 
the ongoing work to promote free and fair trade.
  I end my remarks by noting my appreciation to the administration 
officials for working to make certain these markets remain available to 
Kansas farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers, providing them with some 
much needed certainty. I will further analyze the details of this 
agreement, but I am pleased to say that last night's announcement is 
clearly a positive development. I thank the administration for their 
pursuit of a better NAFTA agreement and a conclusion that includes all 
three countries.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
heard testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett 
Kavanaugh about Dr. Ford's account of an attack on her by Judge 
Kavanaugh and a friend when they were all teenagers.
  Dr. Ford acquitted herself with grace and courage in her recounting 
of the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on her life.
  In his own testimony, Judge Kavanaugh dropped the polite veneer he 
presented at his confirmation hearing when he complimented all of the 
Senators he had met with and had told the committee ``the Supreme Court 
must never be viewed as a partisan institution.'' That was then. Last 
Thursday, he launched into a partisan political screed that 
contradicted everything he had ever professed to believe about the way 
judges should behave. He said: ``This whole two-week effort has been a 
calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up 
anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, a fear that has been 
unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the 
Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing 
opposition groups.''
  It reads like a fever dream, a paranoid fantasy. It is simply not 
true. It arguably violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges 
that binds him as a sitting judge on the Federal appeals court for the 
DC Circuit.
  Dr. Ford's own words undercut Judge Kavanaugh's assertion that a vast 
leftwing conspiracy is out to get him. In her deeply moving testimony, 
Dr. Ford said: ``I thought it was my civic duty to relay the 
information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh's conduct so that those 
considering his nomination would know about this assault.''
  She went on: ``My hope was that providing the information 
confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. 
Kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my 
family, or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and 
invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public.''
  Dr. Ford was trying to do her civic duty. She was not motivated by 
revenge on anyone's behalf. She had no part in any organized 
opposition. She was not fueled by pent-up anger or resentment. In 
deciding to come forward, Dr. Ford was just a person who thought that 
if she could only let the President know what Brett Kavanaugh did to 
her, he would choose someone else.
  Yet Kavanaugh attacked and tried to turn Dr. Ford's honest effort 
into some sort of a dark, ugly ambush. At least he didn't accuse Dr. 
Ford of being part of the alleged conspiracy that sought to derail his 
nomination. In fact, when Senator Booker asked Judge Kavanaugh if he 
blamed Dr. Ford for a coordinated effort against him, Judge Kavanaugh 
said he bore Dr. Ford no ill will and that people in the hearing room, 
not Dr. Ford, were against him.
  We all saw something about Judge Kavanaugh's temperament and 
character that day that should disqualify him from serving on the 
Supreme Court of the United States. He was angry. He was belligerent. 
He was partisan. He went on the attack against the Senators who were 
questioning him.
  These are not qualities we look for in a Supreme Court Justice or in 
a judge for that matter. But don't take it from me; listen to Judge 
Kavanaugh himself. In 2016, in the Catholic University Law Review, he 
wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. He 
told his readers that ``a good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act as 
a partisan.'' He said that while it is good for some judges to come 
with a background in politics or policy, ``federal judges have to check 
any prior political allegiances at the door. You have to shed them.'' 
Based on Judge Kavanaugh's testimony last week, it certainly doesn't 
sound like he has shed his partisan convictions and connections.
  In the same law review article, Judge Kavanaugh wrote:

       To be a good judge and a good umpire, it's critical to have 
     the proper demeanor. It's important to . . . keep our 
     emotions in check and be calm amidst the storm.

  He is not wrong. Indeed, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges 
backs him up.
  Canon 2 of the code reads:

       A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of 
     Impropriety in All Activities. . . . A judge should respect 
     and comply with the law and should act at all times in a 
     manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and 
     impartiality of the judiciary.

  It further explains in commentary:

       An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds . 
     . . would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, 
     impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is 
     impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by 
     irresponsible or improper conduct by judges.

  Canon 3 explains that ``a judge should be faithful to, and maintain 
professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by 
partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.''
  We need to consider the rules and norms that argue against the kind 
of intemperate behavior we saw from Judge Kavanaugh because of the 
allegations brought against him by several sources, all of which 
deserve a full and fair investigation by the FBI.
  I was heartened to see Senators Flake and Coons both in agreement to 
hold off on a floor vote for at least a week while the supplemental 
background investigation can be completed to look into these 
allegations. Since the agreement, questions have arisen about the exact 
nature of that investigation. Is it limited? If so, how? Will all leads 
be followed, or will the FBI be hamstrung in some way by instructions 
from the White House?
  In the ensuing firestorm, there has been a lot of debate about 
whether the FBI investigation will be credible and professional and not 
a perfunctory effort. There are some indications now that the FBI will 
be allowed to do its job. I hope that will be the case. I expect the 
FBI to exhaust all possible avenues of investigation that are relevant 
as to whether Judge Kavanaugh had a pattern of drinking that resulted

[[Page S6408]]

in aggression and belligerence toward women.
  Some have said that Judge Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt 
and that unless Dr. Ford's account can be proven, he should be 
confirmed, but that confuses the issue. No one is entitled to be on the 
Supreme Court. The burden should be on Judge Kavanaugh to show he is 
fit for the job.
  Now the Republicans' hired gun prosecutor, whom they hid behind while 
Dr. Ford was questioned, has published a memo in which she concludes 
that she could not bring a case based on the evidence heard at the 
second hearing. Frankly, this conclusion is meaningless. I am sure that 
in her previous job as a specialist in sex crimes, she would never have 
proceeded to a trial before an investigation, and she would not have 
excluded key witnesses. There was no investigation. Key witnesses were 
not called. I hope this is not the way she would prepare a case.
  I have said many times that Democrats didn't need to manufacture 
reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court. 
Based on his record, his opinions and dissents, his academic writings, 
and his speeches, I have concluded that he will not be a fair and 
objective Justice of the Supreme Court. His views on reproductive 
rights, Native rights, on legal protections for workers, consumers, and 
the environment, not to mention his very broad views of Presidential 
protections, are all of deep concern to me.
  Now that we have heard Dr. Ford's account and have seen Judge 
Kavanaugh's angry and combative reaction, it is evident that he should 
not serve and should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. We can do 
better, and the American people deserve better.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________