[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 163 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6417-S6428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SPORTS MEDICINE LICENSURE CLARITY ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the unfinished business.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 302, a bill to provide 
     protections for certain sports medicine professionals who 
     provide certain medical services in a secondary State.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with McConnell 
     amendment No. 4026 (to the motion to concur in the amendment 
     of the House to the amendment of the Senate), to change the 
     enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 4027 (to amendment No. 4026), of a 
     perfecting nature.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, if you stop and listen, you can 
practically hear the Democrats trying to move the goalposts on Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Remember, before Judge 
Kavanaugh was even named, several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee 
indicated they would oppose whoever the nominee might turn out to be.
  The junior Senator from California, for example, explained on 
television that whomever President Trump chose would bring about ``the 
destruction of the Constitution of the United States as far as I can 
tell.'' That was, incredibly enough, from a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Of course, mere hours after Judge Kavanaugh was announced, my friend, 
the Democratic leader, made the announcement that has now become 
famous. ``I will oppose him with everything I've got,'' he said.
  Not long after that, another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee 
proclaimed that anyone supporting Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation was--
listen to this--``complicit in the evil.''
  These statements are the context for every action the Democrats have 
taken during this entire process. These statements remind us: Democrats 
may be trying to move the goalposts every 5 minutes, but their goal has 
not moved an inch. They will not be satisfied unless they have brought 
down Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
  It started with straightforward political maneuvering. None of it 
worked, of course, but there were whatever issues they could find to 
delay, delay, delay.
  First, back in June, the Democrats tried to argue that the Senate 
shouldn't confirm a Supreme Court Justice in any even-numbered year. 
Then they were reminded that Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Souter were 
all confirmed during midterm election years, and that argument 
evaporated.
  Next, the Democrats said the process should be delayed because too 
few documents were available from Judge Kavanaugh's past public 
service. Well, then they received the most pages of documents ever 
produced for a Supreme Court nomination. So guess what came next. The 
goalposts moved down the field, and the Democrats called for a delay 
because there were too many documents for them to read.
  I wish this fight could have remained in the realm of normalcy, but 
when none of these tactics worked--when Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated 
his widely acknowledged brilliance, openmindedness, and collegiality at 
his confirmation hearings--some chose a darker road. The politics of 
personal destruction were willfully unleashed.
  I have spoken at length about the underhanded way the Democrats have 
treated Dr. Ford and her allegation. In brief, for 6 weeks, Dr. Ford's 
confidential account passed from one Democratic Member of Congress to 
the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee, to the Washington, DC, 
lawyers whom the Senate Democrats handpicked for her. Then, well after 
Judge Kavanaugh's hearings had wrapped up,

[[Page S6418]]

the supposedly confidential letter found its way into the press--
shoving aside proper procedure, shoving aside the accuser's plea for 
privacy.
  This is not politics as usual because let us not forget that Dr. 
Ford's allegation is not the only uncorroborated allegation that has 
been breathlessly paraded around. Oh, no. Shortly after Dr. Ford's 
confidential letter made its way into the press, the floodgates of mud 
and muck opened entirely on Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Out of the 
woodwork came one uncorroborated allegation after another, each 
seemingly more outlandish than the last.
  A tabloid lawyer organized a red carpet rollout for someone who 
wanted to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of masterminding some kind of high 
school drug and serial sexual assault ring--of hosting one wild party 
after another, filled with sexual violence, for which there 
conveniently happen to be zero witnesses but plenty of people to refute 
the claims. This didn't stay in the tabloids, by the way. This 
fantastic story was effectively read into the record of the Judiciary 
Committee by the ranking member, who decided it deserved a mention in 
her remarks during last Thursday's hearing. Then every Democratic 
member of the Judiciary Committee seized on this outlandish tale in a 
formal letter in which they called on Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his 
name from consideration.
  This is how desperate some became for any way to stop this stunningly 
qualified nominee. I guess upholding any standards of any kind was just 
too much to ask.
  We heard of another anonymous, unattributed, and now thoroughly 
debunked account--this time of an anonymous accusation from Colorado 
that alleged physical abuse 20 years ago. A sitting Federal district 
court judge quickly stepped up to bat down that anonymous smear.
  We heard that Judge Kavanaugh was supposedly responsible for a sexual 
assault on a boat in Newport, RI, until the accuser recanted the story 
completely, but it was not before many in the media had begun eating it 
up.
  In short, the Democrats' mishandling of Dr. Ford's letter opened the 
floodgates for this deluge of uncorroborated, unbelievable mud, and the 
mudslide was cheered on and capitalized on at every turn by the far 
left, which has been so eager to stop this nomination.
  Just politics? I don't think so.
  On the other extreme, some of the other lines of attack have been 
completely trivial. Last night, the New York Times unleashed this 
``major'' story. Get this--Judge Kavanaugh may have been accused of 
throwing some ice across a college bar in the mid-1980s. Talk about a 
bombshell. One can only imagine what new bombshell might be published 
today or tomorrow.
  Here is what we know--one thing for sure: The Senate will vote on 
Judge Kavanaugh here on this floor this week.
  Our Democratic friends will try to move the goalposts yet again. Just 
yesterday, they submitted a list of 24 people whom they want the FBI to 
interview. So I am confident we will hear that even the very same 
supplemental FBI investigation the Democrats had so loudly demanded 
will now, magically, no longer be sufficient.
  Well, after the FBI shares what it has found, Senators will have the 
opportunity to vote. We will have the opportunity to vote no on the 
politics of personal destruction. We will have the opportunity to vote 
yes on this fine nominee.


                               Tax Reform

  Madam President, on an entirely different matter, the U.S. economy 
continues to deliver very good news. My home State of Kentucky is, 
certainly, no exception.
  Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to take part in the 
announcement of a major new investment in my hometown of Louisville. GE 
Appliances unveiled its plan to create 400 new jobs and to invest more 
than $200 million in Kentucky. It is expanding its laundry and 
dishwasher production facilities and is upgrading its capacity for 
innovation.
  GE's Appliance Park--where nearly 6,000 currently work--has been a 
manufacturing landmark in Louisville for more than six decades. The 
facility has meant a great deal to my community. At its height, it 
employed some 20,000 workers. However, following the sluggish economy 
of the last decade, the workforce has shrunk to just one-fifth of its 
previous strength. So yesterday's announcement marked a step in a very 
new direction--aggressive expansion, doubling down on American workers. 
It is the same story that is being written all over America by job 
creators, large and small.
  Where did the new direction come from? What changed? Well, for one 
thing, the policy climate here in Washington changed.
  GE Appliances' President and CEO Kevin Nolan said, ``The changes in 
rates and favorable tax treatment of investments in machinery and 
equipment play a big role in our expansion plans''--more jobs for 
Kentuckians, more prosperity for local communities.
  I would like to ask the men and women who will get one of these new 
jobs what they make of the fact that every single Democrat in Congress 
voted to block the tax reform that is helping this happen.
  The Republicans got it done anyway. We delivered sweeping tax cuts 
for workers and families. Now, thanks in part to our policies, the 
economy is thriving. Just last month, consumer confidence reached its 
highest level in 18 years. In other words, American families are 
feeling better about spending and investing in their communities than 
they have felt since September of 2000.
  In September of 2000, the Senate pages serving here on the floor 
hadn't even been born yet, but as these young folks continue their 
studies and enter the workforce, they will be participating in an 
American economy with more opportunities, where workers keep more of 
their hard-earned paychecks. That is the economy Republicans had in 
mind when we voted to enact generational tax reform and to lift the 
regulatory burden on investors and job creators. It is the economy we 
are continuing to work for every day.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I like the majority leader. We get 
along quite well. He even laughs at my jokes, which sometimes aren't 
very good. We are very proud we are working on the appropriations bills 
together in a bipartisan way, as this place ought to work. But 
sometimes his comments are so absurd and so filled with double 
standard, innuendo, and hypocrisy that you don't know whether to laugh 
or cry.
  He has been on the floor every day saying that Democrats are causing 
delay. Democrats are causing delay? First, to say that Democrats are 
causing delay, coming from the same man who delayed the nomination of 
Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland for over 300 days without 
a shrug of his shoulders--give me a break. The leader delayed for 10 
months when he thought it was right to do, and he can't wait for a week 
to get an honest report out of the FBI? What a double standard. How 
galling. Accusing Democrats of needlessly delaying a Supreme Court 
nomination is galling and hypocritical coming from a leader who delayed 
the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice for over 300 days, until his 
party had a chance to win the White House. So no one--no American--
should accept his admonishments about delay. He is the master of delay.
  Second, he blames Democrats for these delays. As the leader well 
knows, Democrats are not in charge. We can't set the calendar. These 
things have been delayed because people on his side of the aisle who 
had sincere concerns about having a fair process said they will not go 
forward unless the process is made fairer.
  Even the initial hearing where Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified 
was because a member of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side 
said he didn't want to go forward until he heard from them. It had 
nothing to do with Democrats. Did we agree that should happen? Of 
course. And so did most people who are fairminded. But it wasn't caused 
by us.
  On the reopening of the FBI investigation into these new allegations, 
the background check investigation, I would ask Leader McConnell, who 
caused that? Who caused this delay? It is not the Democrats. We don't 
have the ability to do it. It was three Members on his side who 
sincerely were

[[Page S6419]]

seeking better truth because they heard two arguments, they weren't 
sure which was right, and they saw that without some kind of 
independent investigation, it would tear the American people apart in 
ways for which we will pay a price years down the road no matter what 
the outcome of the vote on Judge Kavanaugh.
  Democrats didn't cause the delay, and he knows it. It was the 
inability of all of the Republicans to be unified--with justification, 
because the truth should be sought after in a more sincere way for a 
nomination to the highest Court of the land.
  Leader McConnell has said: We are going to ``plow right through'' the 
recent allegations. Fortunately, some Members on his side of the aisle 
didn't want to plow right through. They didn't want to delay 
unnecessarily. One week--give me a break--compared to 10 months, 
leaving the Scalia seat open? Who are we kidding? Who are we kidding? 
Who is making this a political argument? Let's ask.
  One final point. The leader kept accusing the people who came forward 
of engaging in political smear campaigns, of being in the mud. I want 
to ask the leader to answer a direct question: Does he believe or not 
believe Dr. Ford? Yes or no. I happen to believe her. He refuses to 
answer that one way or the other because he knows that Dr. Ford had 
tremendous credibility. Instead, he calls her names. He uses it as 
Democrats--but she came forward on her own.
  By the way, one of the first things she did was she called the 
Washington Post and spoke to the reporter who later wrote the story. 
That was long before any Democrat knew what was going on. She felt a 
sincere need to come forward.
  To call her political--which is what, by ricochet, the leader is 
doing--is so unfair and is so wrong. To call all three of these women 
who came forward, whether or not you believe them, political actors is 
treating women in the same way that unfortunately too many women, as we 
have learned over the last few years, have been treated in the past. 
That doesn't mean allegations shouldn't be proven. That doesn't mean 
there shouldn't be a discreet, fair process to try to get to the bottom 
of it, which is what the FBI investigation is. That doesn't mean all 
men are guilty before proven guilty. It means there deserves to be a 
fair hearing even if it takes 1 week--1 week compared to 10 months of 
delay.
  Finally, the investigation itself should only take a week. That is 
for sure. No Democrat has called for it taking more than a week. We are 
not moving the goalpost. But it should be thorough. It should not be 
limited by the Senate Judiciary staff, who was initially calling the 
shots, and they have been biased to begin with. When the Democratic 
staff asked to be on the phone with the counsel to the President, Mr. 
McGahn, the Republican staff refused. That is not bipartisan. That is 
not fair. That is not evenhanded.

  Fortunately, yesterday the President said the FBI should go forward. 
They can interview many people in a week. When there has been a crime 
situation that called for it or a terrorism situation that called for 
it, from what I understand, they have interviewed hundreds in a week. 
So a list of 20 people to be interviewed in a week, when the FBI has 
thousands of agents, many of them well trained in the art of figuring 
out how to interview somebody, is not unreasonable. It is only fair.
  We hope there are still no limitations on the FBI investigation. We 
hope there are no limitations because that would jaundice the whole 
process, and that is not what those who called for it on either side of 
the aisle had asked for. We had asked for it to be full and fair and 
open, and then everyone would make his or her judgment. That is all 
people are asking for.
  On that issue, I once again call on President Trump and the White 
House to release in writing what White House Counsel Don McGahn has 
instructed the FBI to pursue. Until then, we have to take President 
Trump's off-the-cuff comments with, perhaps, grains of salt. We have to 
be shown that what he said is actually being implemented.
  Let me read a few quotes.
  ``The Supreme Court must never, never be viewed as a partisan 
institution.'' That is what Judge Kavanaugh said in his 2006 
confirmation hearings.
  Here is one more from a speech Judge Kavanaugh gave in 2015: ``First 
and most obviously . . . a judge cannot be a political partisan.'' I 
think most Americans would agree with that. I certainly do.
  A lodestar in our consideration of judicial confirmations should be 
whether the nominee is independent and within the ideological 
mainstream. The Judge Kavanaugh we saw last Thursday did not meet the 
standard laid out in his past statements. His prepared statement to the 
committee--prepared; if you will, malice aforethought--accused sitting 
U.S. Senators of a phony smear campaign, lambasted ``left-wing 
opposition groups,'' and portrayed the recent allegations--the 
allegations of Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and the third person who came 
forward, Ms. Swetnick--as ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' 
Frankly, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for FOX News 
than a confirmation hearing for the august U.S. Supreme Court. But that 
is in character with Judge Kavanaugh's long history of working for the 
most partisan legal causes--Ken Starr, Bush v. Gore, all the myriad 
controversies of the Bush era.
  It would be one thing if Judge Kavanaugh discarded his partisan 
feelings once he donned the black robes of a jurist. Unfortunately, he 
has been on the bench for many years, and in Thursday's hearing, he 
revealed that his bitter partisan resentments still lurk right below 
the surface.
  It should give us all pause to consider what it means to elevate such 
a partisan world view to the Supreme Court, whether it be a Democratic 
or Republican partisan view, where rulings must be made on the legal 
merits, not--not--on the side of the aisle which most benefits.
  The greatest issue against Judge Kavanaugh, the one that really 
brothers most people, is his credibility. Is he telling the truth? That 
issue supersedes all the others.
  There may be some who say: Well, what happened in high school 
shouldn't count. It is many years later. People grow. People change.
  I think what happened to Dr. Ford--she seems credible to me--is 
something you can't predict. It is not what men do. Some may say that, 
but we are looking at what Judge Kavanaugh said at age 53, not what he 
did at age 18. We are looking at his credibility now as a grown adult. 
If you believe Dr. Ford, then Judge Kavanaugh is not telling the truth.
  If this were the only instance, it would be one thing. That is bad 
enough, but there are many more. Over and over again, it is hard to 
believe what Judge Kavanaugh swore under oath at the committee hearing.
  Just yesterday, NBC News reported that either Judge Kavanaugh or 
people close to the judge were in communication with his Yale 
classmates to get them to rebut allegations by Deborah Ramirez, later 
published in the New Yorker.
  Beyond the unseemliness of a Federal judge pressuring former 
classmates to support his nomination, it seems that Judge Kavanaugh was 
at least very misleading to the Judiciary Committee about Ms. Ramirez's 
story. When asked by Senator Hatch when he first heard of Ramirez's 
allegations, he answered ``in the New Yorker story.'' That is when he 
first heard. Based on the NBC reports, if they are correct, that was 
not truthful.
  It would be one thing if that were one isolated incident, but, again, 
there are far too many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far 
too many mischaracterizations. He pled ignorance to many Bush-era 
controversies, only for emails to be released showing he was aware of 
them all and played a role in many. He offered explanations for high 
school yearbook quotes. And it is not the quotes themselves or what 
they indicated; it is that his explanations sort of defy belief. And, 
of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college 
classmates, he has grossly mischaracterized his relationship with 
alcohol.
  The common thread is that Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly tiptoes around 
the truth. He doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to 
paint his nomination in a favorable light.
  We want a Supreme Court nominee, whatever their politics and whatever 
their party origins, to be a shining example of someone who tells the 
truth

[[Page S6420]]

without doubt and without equivocation. If you say ``Well, maybe he is 
telling the truth, and maybe he is not,'' then he doesn't belong on the 
Supreme Court, and I think most Americans are saying that.
  Again, even if you want to discount--as some people do--what happened 
when he was 15 in high school and 18 in college, you cannot discount 
what he is saying and professing at age 53 when it flies in the face of 
being truthful. That is the key question here.
  There is demeanor. He sure didn't show the demeanor of a judge at the 
hearing. There is partisanship. He brought out the most raw form of 
partisanship, so unbecoming of someone on the appeals court, let alone 
the Supreme Court, and he did not show any semblance to always being 
100 percent honest and truthful, which is what we need in a Supreme 
Court Justice.

  So, again, even if you feel that what happened when he was 15 and 18 
shouldn't matter, what happens when he is 53 does matter, and his 
credibility is in real doubt--doubt enough, I think, for most Americans 
to say that this man does not belong on the Supreme Court, and there 
ought to be somebody--many people--who would be a whole lot better.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to concur with respect to 
the FAA.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have been in politics for a long time, 
but I have never seen anything like what I witnessed when I went back 
to Chicago last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. From the minute the plane 
landed at Midway Airport in Chicago through the entire weekend, 
everyone--everyone--was engaged. People were coming up to me--total 
strangers--expressing themselves about the hearing that had just been 
completed with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I was stunned, and I have 
done this for a long time. There was the doorman in the rain holding an 
umbrella at the hotel talking about what he heard and what he 
remembered from the hearing. The taxicab driver, the person on the 
street--everyone wanted to speak to me about this.
  It has been estimated that 6 out of 10 Americans listened or watched 
the hearing last week. I am not at all surprised. The response I found 
on the street and in the neighborhoods and in meetings around my State 
of Illinois and in the city of Chicago certainly gave evidence to that.
  It was an interesting response, too, primarily from women but not 
exclusively--women who came up to me, and I could tell by the look in 
their eyes and the tone of their voice that something had just happened 
publicly in America that touched them personally. Some would confide in 
me and whisper about a personal experience they had. Others would look 
into my eyes, and I realized this meant a lot to them for reasons they 
didn't want to share.
  That hearing last week was a moment I have never seen before in 
American politics in the time I have been around.
  The second thing I noted was the comments about Dr. Ford. Except for 
a still photograph, I had never seen her before she walked into the 
committee room last week to testify under oath. I didn't know what to 
expect as she sat down, after taking the oath, and began her testimony.
  Time and again the people who worked with her described her condition 
as fragile. In her own words during the course of her testimony, she 
said she was terrified--terrified. And why wouldn't she be--at this 
point in her life, to become a national person, a national profile, a 
national celebrity; to see her experience turn her family life upside 
down to the point where she was forced to move out of her home and she 
and her family had to take refuge and safety in a secure location. 
There was all of the attention that was being paid to her, some with 
praise and some with criticism. It is the kind of thing that even 
politicians are supposed to get used to and never do. So imagine that 
scenario for an ordinary person.
  I listened to her testimony, and I heard what she had to say about 
why this event took place. I realized that this woman from California 
believed she had what she called a civic duty to come forward before 
the White House made its final decision on the choice of a Supreme 
Court nominee because she believed she had important information about 
Brett Kavanaugh that the President should know and that Congress should 
know, and she didn't know where to turn.
  For those who argue that she was part of some political conspiracy, 
she didn't know which way to turn. She ended up turning to the place 
most would, to her local Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, and sitting down 
with her in California and talking about this confidential letter that 
she wanted to put in the hands of somebody who would make a decision 
about the future of the Supreme Court. It was a perfectly reasonable 
explanation of what an ordinary citizen would do, and that is what she 
did.
  When she finally got in contact with the Senate Judiciary Committee 
with this same confidential letter and had communications with Senator 
Feinstein, she stressed over and over that she wanted this to remain 
confidential and that she didn't want her identity to be disclosed for 
fear of what it would mean to her and her family--a natural human 
reaction.
  I want to say a word about Senator Feinstein. You may quibble, you 
may debate, you may argue with the way she handled this, but I think 
she did what she thought was right for the very right reasons. She 
believed that she had an obligation to Dr. Ford--an obligation to 
protect her identity. I know Senator Feinstein. She is a person of 
character and values and principles. I have been saddened and, in fact, 
angry at times when my colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
accused her of so many things--of plotting some political conspiracy to 
bring down this nominee. In fact, two of them suggested she was the one 
who leaked the letter to the press. I am as certain as I stand here, 
after years of working with her, that neither of those things are even 
close to the truth. She was trying to do what she felt was the right 
thing--first, for this woman, this mother, this resident of her home 
State, and, second, for this country. I don't question in any way 
whatsoever--and no one should--her efforts and good faith to serve this 
Nation in a very difficult process.
  But Dr. Ford came forward and told her story. I asked her a question 
point-blank: ``We are now being told that perhaps you were mistaken. 
Perhaps it wasn't Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted you in that bedroom in 
the Maryland suburbs. I wanted to ask you: With what degree of 
certainty do you believe that Brett Kavanaugh was the assailant?''
  Her answer to me was very short and direct: ``100 percent.'' She was 
100 percent certain.
  You think to yourself: It happened 36 years ago. How could she be so 
certain? It was so long ago, but then you realize that, at that moment, 
it impacted her life in a way that few people ever want to experience. 
For 36 years she has been carrying the memory of that party, that 
bedroom, that assault in her life, to the point where she sought 
therapy--couples therapy with her husband--and told her therapist, as 
well as her husband, the name of the assailant 6 years ago, long before 
Judge Kavanaugh was proposed as a nominee for the Supreme Court.
  I came away with strong feelings about Dr. Ford--her credibility, her 
composure, the fact that she was resolute, and the fact that she showed 
a degree of character that is extraordinary under the circumstances. I 
believe Dr. Ford, and I believe what she told us.
  That is why I am troubled to hear Republican Senators come to the 
floor today and say: Well, you know, we feel that she was mistreated. 
Some of the same Senators, including the majority leader, have said 
that. They came to the floor on 3 successive days last week and 
dismissed her complaint as a smear. That is the word that was used--
``smear''--on the floor of the Senate. Even before she had testified, 
even before they had seen her under oath say what she did, they 
dismissed this as a smear. I don't think that is an indication of 
respect for Dr. Ford to have said that on the floor of the Senate, and 
I think that she deserves

[[Page S6421]]

more, as anyone would, who is willing to testify under oath.
  I would also say that the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh last week was 
a revelation. He stayed with his story that he was mischaracterized and 
was improperly and wrongly accused, and he, too, was certain that this 
event had never occurred, but in his testimony, in his opening 
statement last week before our Judiciary Committee, I saw something 
that I had never seen before in the Senate. I saw a level of emotion, 
which was understandable, considering the accusations that had been 
made, but there was a level of anger that I have seldom seen, and 
perhaps have never seen, in the Senate.
  Judge Kavanaugh attacked those who had raised these questions about 
him. He said that he bore no ill will toward Dr. Ford, but then he 
called her allegations ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit,'' 
citing ``apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 
election,'' and then he added: ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.''
  It is hard to imagine that a person aspiring to serve on the highest 
Court of the land--where your temperament is so important, where you 
have to make certain, as best you can, that you take politics out of 
your legal equation--would be so direct and so specific in blaming his 
plight on ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.''
  This political grace note from Brett Kavanaugh--this ``lock her up'' 
grace note--may be appealing to some on the political spectrum, but it 
speaks volumes about this judge and how he would serve if he ever had 
an opportunity to be on the Supreme Court.
  It has been said over and over by the Republican majority leader that 
the Democrats are in the midst of a big delay tactic. I have to echo 
the comments of Senator Schumer earlier. It is very difficult to take 
the Senate majority leader credibly when he makes a statement that we 
are trying to delay filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate 
majority leader set the record in delaying Merrick Garland's nomination 
for more than 300 days when he even refused to meet with the man, let 
alone consider a hearing, when Judge Garland was nominated by President 
Obama. To have this majority leader now tell us that we are the ones 
responsible for delaying really is to ignore history and to ignore the 
reality of what has occurred here, because of the courage of his 
Members, three of whom have stepped up and said: We will not dismiss 
Dr. Ford's allegations with just a staff phone call; we want an actual 
hearing. That was inspired by three Republican Members of the Senate, 
and we backed them up. We thought their request was right.
  As for this FBI investigation, I know a little bit about that because 
I asked Judge Kavanaugh directly during the course of this hearing what 
he wanted us to do. I did not ask him what the White House wanted us to 
do and not what the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican leadership 
wanted to do, but what he, Judge Kavanaugh, wanted to do when it came 
to this FBI investigation. My point was, if Dr. Ford is willing to 
submit her allegations to an FBI review, why wouldn't you, Judge 
Kavanaugh? If you believe there are no credible witnesses and no 
credible evidence, otherwise, why wouldn't you want a complete 
investigation done by the nonpartisan professionals at the FBI? But 
even then, he refused that thought of an FBI investigation.
  It wasn't until Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican of Arizona, made it 
clear that he would not move forward on a vote on the floor without 
that FBI investigation, joined by Senator Coons of Delaware and many 
others, that this FBI investigation was under way. So give credit where 
it is due. Any delay of a week for us to consider this is really 
inspired by Senator Flake's request, with the support on the Democratic 
side of the aisle. So to blame us for this delay, unfortunately, again, 
is not accurate.
  It appears now that Senator McConnell, the Republican majority 
leader, is determined to plow through this, as he has said. He has said 
this nomination will be on this floor this week. If the FBI 
investigation is completed Thursday or Friday, there will be a report 
that is available for Senators to review, as they should, and to read 
the results of this investigation and draw their own conclusions. That 
is the regular process of the Senate, but it appears that Senator 
McConnell can't wait. He can't wait for that to be completed and 
thoughtfully considered by his colleagues in the Senate.
  It has to be this week, he has determined, and has said it over and 
over again. He blames us for delay, delay, delay. If we take a day or 
two or more to thoughtfully consider whatever the FBI finds, isn't that 
our constitutional responsibility filling a vacancy, a lifetime 
appointment, to the highest Court in the land? That, I think, is my 
responsibility and should be his as well.
  Let me close by saying, this has been a celebrated chapter in history 
and will be remembered. To have a Supreme Court nomination for the 
swing vote of the Court that may tip the balance for decades before us 
is something we obviously consider seriously. That it would come at a 
moment when these allegations have been made about sexual harassment as 
we are facing this issue at every level and every sector of American 
culture really dramatizes the importance that we get this right; most 
importantly, that we be fair--fair both to Dr. Ford, who had the 
courage to step forward, and fair to Judge Kavanaugh, who has the right 
to tell us his memory of events and to be taken seriously as well. The 
FBI investigation, though it was resisted by Judge Kavanaugh, is a step 
in the right direction.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have not 
declared where they are and how they will vote on the Kavanaugh 
nomination will wait until the FBI investigation is complete, review 
their findings, and reflect on the very basic question: Is Brett 
Kavanaugh the right person at this moment in history to be given a 
lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 USMCA

  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

[[Page S6422]]

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,

[[Page S6423]]

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.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S6424]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Las Vegas Mass Shooting

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, Candice Bowers overcame a lot of 
challenges in her life. She raised two children as a single mother. She 
worked as a waitress at Mimi's Cafe. She had a wide circle of friends. 
She adopted a little girl named Ariel, who was a relative's baby who 
couldn't be cared for. Ariel was 2 years old, and her children were 16 
and 20, a year ago yesterday, when Candice Bowers was one of the over 
50 victims of the biggest mass shooting in American history--in Las 
Vegas.
  In speaking about Candice, her aunt said that everybody loved her and 
that she always had a smile on her face. She would help anybody. She 
had a big heart. She was just a sweetheart. Robert Layaco, a 78-year-
old veteran who served in the Korean war, who was her grandfather, said 
that everybody else might forget about this in 6 months but that they 
will never forget about her--he won't, her daughter won't, her little 
daughter won't, and her son will not forget about her--in thinking 
ahead to all the Thanksgivings and Christmases at which there will be 
an empty seat at their dinner table. He said thoughts and prayers are 
just not going to do it.
  Angela Gomez was 20 years old when she was gunned down at the concert 
a year ago yesterday. She had graduated from Riverside Polytechnic High 
School in 2015 and was attending classes at a community college. Her 
former cheer coach said that Angie was a fun-loving, sweet, young lady 
with a great sense of humor and that she challenged herself all the 
time. Angie enrolled in advanced placement classes, and she loved the 
stage. She was involved in cheer, she was involved in choir, and she 
was involved in the Riverside Children's Theatre. She had an amazing 
life ahead of her--filled with joy, filled with enthusiasm for 
performance.
  Charleston Hartfield was 34 years old when he was killed in the 
shooting in Las Vegas. He was a Las Vegas police officer. He was off 
duty when he decided to attend the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival, and 
that is when this shooting took place.
  One of his friends said:

       I don't know a better man than Charles. They say it's 
     always the good ones we lose early. There's no truer 
     statement than that with Charles.

  Charles enlisted in the Army in 2000, and he was a paratrooper with 
the 82nd Airborne Division. He deployed to Iraq in 2003, and he served 
in a task force that was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for 
extraordinary heroism. He survived his deployment to Iraq--one of the 
most dangerous theaters of combat in modern history. Yet he couldn't 
survive going to a concert to hear a singer he liked in his hometown of 
Las Vegas.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. President, I come to the floor every week or so--a little bit 
less frequently now than I did a few years ago--to talk about who these 
people were. I think the statistics have kind of come to wash over 
people. There is no other country in the world--at least in the 
advanced world, in the industrialized world--that has numbers like 
these: 33,000 a year dying from guns, 2,800 a month, 93 a day. These 
are epidemic level numbers, and there are lots of different stories 
inside these numbers. The majority of these are suicides. We have an 
epidemic level of suicides alone in this country that is going nowhere 
but up. A lot of these are homicides. A lot of these are accidental 
shootings. They are domestic violence crimes. Suffice it to say, it 
only happens in the United States, and it is getting worse, not better.
  Certainly, I can show you a 200-year trajectory of how violence in 
the United States is getting better, but in the last several years, 
since these mass shootings have become so regularized, all of it is 
getting worse. There seems to be a lot of consensus about at least one 
very narrow-cast idea to try to reduce the likelihood that 58 people 
could die all at one time, as happened in Las Vegas.
  As we came out of that shooting a year ago, it seemed that we all, at 
the very least, agreed that these things called bump stocks--these 
things that are manufactured to turn a semiautomatic weapon essentially 
into an automatic weapon with which you can fire multiple rounds with 
one pull of the trigger--shouldn't be legal, that they shouldn't be 
allowed to be sold. We had all made a decision a long time ago that 
notwithstanding our differences as to whether these semiautomatic, 
tactical weapons should be sold in the commercial space, we at least 
knew that automatic weapons should not be available to consumers. Now 
this modification was being allowed to turn semiautomatic weapons into 
automatic weapons.
  We are now a year since the Las Vegas mass shooting, and you can 
still get one of these. You can still turn a semiautomatic weapon into 
an automatic weapon with ease. In fact, bump stock manufacturers don't 
need a Federal firearms license to sell them--you don't even need a 
license to sell these things--because the Federal Government classifies 
them as accessories, not as firearms.
  To me, it is just unbelievable that our ability to work on the issue 
of gun violence has broken down so badly that even on an issue about 
which we profess agreement a year after 58 people were killed--and by 
the way, 800 people injured--we still haven't done anything in this 
Congress about the narrow issue of bump stocks, which turn a 
semiautomatic weapon essentially into an automatic weapon.
  In February of this year, President Trump directed the Department of 
Justice to propose a rule that would do this. Just last week, the 
Department of Justice announced that it was submitting its rule to the 
Office of Management and Budget--one of the final steps in the 
rulemaking process. Yet, as we all know, that rulemaking process takes 
a long time. You are talking about a rule that will not be effective 
until at least 2019. Even when that rule is put into place, it will be 
easily contested in the courts because we all know that it is doubtful 
as to whether the administration has the ability to ban bump stocks 
given the nature of the underlying law.
  It would be so much easier for us to just pass a law that says bump 
stocks are illegal, thus taking the question away from the courts as to 
whether the administration has the power to do it. We could also do it 
much more quickly because this rule is still going to take months and 
months and months before it is fully put into effect, putting more and 
more people in this country at risk.
  I wear my frustration on my sleeve when it comes to the issue of gun 
violence because I just don't understand why there is only one issue 
like this about which the American public has made up its mind. The 
polling tells us that universal background checks enjoy 97-percent 
support in this country. By a 2-to-1 margin, people want these assault 
weapons off the street. The ban of bump stocks enjoys ratings similar 
to that of universal background checks. Yet we still can't get it done, 
and there are consequences.
  If you look back over the history of this country, we have always 
been a more violent nation than our parent nations in Europe from which 
a lot of the original settlers came. Yet we are more violent now by a 
factor of 5 or 6 or in some cases by a factor of 20 because the vast 
majority of our violence in this country today is done by guns.
  The data tells you that in places in the United States that have 
invested in the kinds of reforms that we would like to take nationally, 
like universal background checks or the bans on certain dangerous 
capacity weapons, the violence rates are much lower and gun deaths are 
much lower. So it is not a guessing game as to what works here if you 
actually want to reduce the number of people who are killed by guns. 
Ultimately, we know what works.
  One of my chief frustrations continues to be the fact that we pay 
attention to the issue of gun violence only when 50 people are killed 
or when it is the 1-year mark of 50 people being killed. This is a 
daily number. Every day, 93 people are being killed by guns, and they 
do not make it on the evening talk shows. They don't make headlines, 
but the pain for those 93 families today who will lose a loved one from 
a suicide or a homicide or an accidental shooting is no different from 
the pain that comes from losing a brother or a sister

[[Page S6425]]

or a son or a daughter in Parkland or Las Vegas or in Newtown.
  Betty Sandoval had a toxic relationship with a man who had been 
threatening her for some time. There were text messages found on her 
phone, threatening her life if she ever left her boyfriend. One day, 
she was followed home by this young man, who shot and killed her out of 
anger that their relationship was going the wrong way. Betty was 16 
years old and was shot in a fit of passion by a young man who had easy 
access to a weapon with which to try to exercise his demons over the 
relationship.
  This is the story of America. We don't have more mental illness than 
any other country in the world. We don't have more broken relationships 
than other country in the world. We just have more guns. So when a 
young man is really upset about how things are going with his 16-year-
old girlfriend, he can easily find a weapon.
  That is the story of suicides as well. There are tons of data that 
show that if you don't have easy access to a gun in those moments when 
you are contemplating taking your own life, you have a chance to 
survive that moment, to get help, to have a conversation with your 
mother or your father or a friend, and that gets you to a different 
place. It is the proximity of that weapon that makes a difference, as 
it did for Betty Sandoval, who died just about 3 weeks ago in Houston, 
TX.
  Dezmen Jones was 15 years old and Jameel Robert Murray was 28 years 
old when they were both shot to death in York, PA. Of Jameel Murray, 
one of his mother's friends said that he was always smiling. She said: 
``He was just larger than life.''
  Classmates of Dezmen Jones said that he was ``a really cool person'' 
who ``had lots of friends.'' Dezmen was 15 years old, and he rode his 
bike all around town, from friend to friend, back and forth to William 
Penn Senior High School. He was 15 years old when he was gunned down.
  Jameel's mother's friend set up a fundraiser on Facebook because 
Jameel's family didn't have enough money to bury him. They didn't have 
enough money to do a funeral, so they asked for donations online so 
that they could give Jameel, who was 28 years old, a proper burial. 
That shooting happened a week ago, on September 26.
  Close to home, in Waterbury, CT, on September 2, Matthew Diaz was 
shot in the back early Sunday morning in the Berkley Heights housing 
complex. This is about 3 miles from our house in Connecticut. He was 
the father of two. He had an 11-year-old son and a 2-year-old daughter. 
Imagine having to tell an 11-year-old kid: Your dad is gone, and he is 
never coming back.
  Matthew's mother said:

       He loved his children to the fullest. He would do anything 
     for his children. He would do anything for me. He was my 
     friend, my protector, my comedian.

  Diaz was unconscious when the police found him. They tried to perform 
CPR, but he was pronounced dead about an hour after arriving at the 
hospital.
  Every single one of these stories is exceptional because when an 11-
year-old loses a dad or when you lose your mom or when a newly adopted 
2-year-old no longer has her adoptive mother, everything changes. 
Everything is cataclysmically different for those families.
  There are 93 of those stories every single day, and it doesn't have 
to be that way. It is not inevitable. It is within our control.
  I think these numbers just tend to stun people after a while. I think 
these numbers don't mean anything to folks. So I am going to continue 
to come to the floor and tell the stories of these victims, to give 
voices to these victims, especially today as we mark 1 year since the 
worst mass shooting in the history of the country. We recognize 1 full 
year since we pledged to do something about it, since we talked about 
the narrow area of agreement around bump stocks, 1 full year of total 
inaction on the one thing we thought--we thought--we could do together 
to make the country a safer place.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to floor, once again, to raise 
concerns about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme 
Court. I think these concerns permeate every aspect of the nomination 
process and the nominee himself.
  When Judge Kavanaugh's name came forward because of the nomination by 
President Trump, he came from a list of 25 names. These names were 
assembled by the White House in consultation with--the record 
indicates--just two groups: the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist 
Society. Both are far-right organizations that have a view of public 
policy that on most issues I don't agree with, but I think that is true 
of most Pennsylvanians. I can't speak for the whole country, but I 
would be willing to guess many people around the country are not in 
agreement.
  The Heritage Foundation, for example, has called labor unions 
cartels. That is one view they seem to have about labor unions.
  I come from a State where we have a proud labor history, where people 
literally bled and died for the right to organize, whether it was the 
Homestead strike in Southwestern Pennsylvania back at the turn of the 
previous century or whether it was the Lattimer massacre in 
Northeastern Pennsylvania or whether it was the strike by anthracite 
miners in the early 1900s in my home area, the region where I live in 
Northeastern Pennsylvania. These fights for the right to organize, the 
right to bargain collectively for wages and benefits were not just 
hard-won, but they represented the values of the people of 
Pennsylvania.
  When I consider that history and consider the attacks that organized 
labor is currently undergoing--the Janus case by this Supreme Court is 
one example and I am afraid will be one in a series of cases that will 
be decided against the interests of working men and women--I am 
especially concerned about any nomination to the Supreme Court on those 
and other issues but, maybe, especially the nomination of Judge 
Kavanaugh.
  I think even someone who would disagree with me on my views of 
organized labor or my views on his record would agree that it is highly 
unlikely, if not impossible, that we would have an American middle 
class without organized labor, without all of that work, all of the 
sacrifice that was undertaken to achieve the right to organize. That 
right is threatened now, and I think this nomination is one of the 
threats to that basic right.
  It should come as no surprise that this nominee has sprung from that 
same process that I mentioned earlier. I believe this list that has now 
been put on the table--in other words, no one could be nominated to the 
Supreme Court by this administration unless you are on that list of 25 
that was chosen by those two groups, the Heritage Foundation and the 
Federalist Society. If you are a conservative, if you are seen as a 
conservative judge, a Federal court judge either in the district court 
or appellate court or maybe a State supreme court justice where we have 
had some members of the U.S. Supreme Court have their start--if you are 
not on that list of 25, if you are one of the hundreds of judges 
appointed by Republican Presidents, you need not apply because you 
don't have any chance of getting on the Supreme Court if you are not on 
that favored list of 25.
  I think we can reach--and I think the administration could and should 
reach--a lot further than just a list of 25 that represent a very 
narrow view of justice, a narrow view of jurisprudence, and certainly a 
troubling view of the rights of working men and women, just by way of 
example.
  On the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has frequently 
dissented from his colleagues in cases involving workers' rights, 
discrimination, and retaliation, at times going out of his way to argue 
that the interests of corporations should override the interests of 
individual workers.
  I serve on the Special Committee on Aging, where I happen to be 
serving as a ranking member in this Congress, along with Chairman Susan 
Collins, and I am especially astounded at some of Judge Kavanaugh's 
opinions relating to both older Americans and people with disabilities. 
Just by way of example, he dissented in two cases that

[[Page S6426]]

upheld the Affordable Care Act, which is essential to ensuring 
healthcare for over 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions.
  Right now, the courts are considering whether people with preexisting 
conditions should continue to be protected from being charged more, 
being denied coverage, or being dropped from their insurance simply 
because of their insurance status. The Supreme Court might be the last 
line of defense in maintaining these protections for people with 
preexisting conditions, and Judge Kavanaugh could be that deciding 
vote.
  In two cases, Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with rulings upholding--
upholding--the Affordable Care Act. A former law clerk for Judge 
Kavanaugh said it best when she spoke about his views of the Affordable 
Care Act. She said: ``No other contender on President Trump's list is 
on record so vigorously criticizing the law''--``the law'' meaning the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Also, in notable cases, Judge Kavanaugh sided with employers over 
employees with disabilities, making it more difficult for employees to 
prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under 
law. In one dissent, he took a narrow view of the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, also known as the ADEA, which has protected the rights 
of older workers for decades, and Judge Kavanaugh wrote that he did not 
believe it applied to certain Federal employees.
  Perhaps most egregiously, in Doe v. DC, Judge Kavanaugh determined 
that three women with intellectual disabilities could be forced to 
undergo elective surgery, allowing the government to make medical 
decisions on their behalf without ever attempting to determine their 
wishes.
  I could go on to a whole other line of cases--or maybe not lines of 
cases but commentaries he has made on Executive power, but we don't 
have time today. That issue is of great concern because of what we are 
confronted with, where we have an investigation underway by Robert 
Mueller that involves the executive branch. Of course, a deciding vote 
on the Supreme Court on any issue is significant, but maybe because of 
the current posture--or the current circumstances we are in--Judge 
Kavanaugh's views on Executive power are a whole series of other 
concerns we have.

  These disturbing views are apparent not just from his decisions and 
his writings but of course from the public record. What other positions 
did Judge Kavanaugh take before he was on the bench? What views are set 
forth, for example, in the record from the time he spent as White House 
Staff Secretary and in the White House Counsel's Office? We have to ask 
that question. We don't have his full record from his tenure working in 
the administration of President George W. Bush. Why don't we have 
access to those records? We have to ask that question. Why don't we 
have access to that basic information?
  We don't have these records because Republicans in the Senate have 
been rushing to jam this nomination through before the midterm 
elections. They have broken norms and deprived the Senate of critical 
background documents to get Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court bench 
before November.
  Instead of following precedent and waiting for the nonpartisan 
National Archives to review and release Judge Kavanaugh's full record, 
they have rushed to hold hearings and a committee vote before we even 
have the information all Senators are entitled to before voting on a 
lifetime appointment.
  Let me move to what happened last week. Last Thursday, the Nation 
watched as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford shared with the Senate Judiciary 
Committee the horrible details of a sexual assault she experienced as a 
15-year-old: the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the 
physical assault, and the psychological trauma of believing she might, 
in fact, die. We heard her describe how two teenage boys, under the 
influence of alcohol, pushed her into a bedroom, locked the door, 
turned up the music, and how one of the boys pinned her to the bed and 
covered her mouth to muffle her screams; how she escaped and heard them 
drunkenly ``pinballing'' down the staircase. We also heard how her 
clearest memory from that assault was the boys' laughter while it was 
underway.
  Dr. Ford said she was ``terrified'' as she appeared before the 
Judiciary Committee to recount these traumatic events, but she decided 
to do so because she believed it was her ``civic duty'' to tell the 
public what she had experienced. She was open with the committee and 
consistent in her account and was ``100 percent'' certain that it was 
Brett Kavanaugh who had assaulted her.
  When I watched her testimony from beginning to end, the conclusion I 
reached was that she was both credible and persuasive. I believed her, 
and I think a lot of Americans did as well; maybe more than half of 
Americans believed her, but I know I did.
  I also believe Judge Kavanaugh's response that same day, on Thursday, 
to these credible allegations has cast even greater doubt on his 
credibility. It also cast doubt on his temperament and his ability to 
serve as an impartial jurist. I think anyone, even a supporter of Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination, could have been troubled by his demeanor, and I 
will use the word ``temperament'' again, when he came before the 
committee.
  After Dr. Ford presented her moving testimony, Judge Kavanaugh 
responded with explosive anger and partisan attacks on virtually all 
Democrats. I was surprised he did that. No one would begrudge him the 
opportunity and the necessity, if he felt it were necessary, to deny 
these allegations aggressively. No one would deny him of that, but to 
question the motives of virtually every Democrat--at least every 
Democrat on the committee--and to assert some kind of broad, partisan 
conspiracy, I think was over the top and is not consistent with the 
demeanor anyone would expect from any judge at any level but especially 
someone who might be the fifth vote on the most powerful Court in the 
country and arguably the most powerful Court in the world. I think most 
people, for or against Judge Kavanaugh, would conclude that his 
demeanor that day was not demeanor that was consistent with that high 
position he was seeking.
  Another troubling aspect of his testimony that day--and I was rather 
surprised by this--is when he was asked about an FBI investigation, 
whether he would support additional investigative work by the FBI, 
simply to update the background check or to complete the background 
check, instead of requesting a full and open FBI investigation that 
would show he had nothing to hide, he dodged questions and 
misrepresented the testimony of key witnesses.
  There is an old inscription on a building where I used to work in 
Harrisburg, our State capital, the Finance Building, which reads very 
simply: ``Open to every inspection, secure from every suspicion.'' In 
this case, if Judge Kavanaugh were open to that inspection or, in this 
case, that investigation or a continuing investigation or background 
check, I think a lot of people would have accorded him more credibility 
or more confidence in what he was saying--if he said, please, complete 
the background check and have the FBI take a look at all of these 
questions--but he kept saying it was not his call. That may be 
technically true, but I was hoping he would support the investigation. 
If Judge Kavanaugh has done nothing wrong, as he and the White House 
and Senate Republicans claim, he should have welcomed a full, open, and 
independent investigation into these claims against him or any other 
matter that is relevant.
  I am glad the FBI is finally conducting an investigation, although I 
am concerned about reports that the White House may be limiting the 
investigation and directing its scope. The FBI must be allowed to 
question all relevant individuals and follow the facts where they lead. 
The FBI is the best in the world, and I have great confidence they will 
do good work. They shouldn't be constrained in this very limited period 
of time, this 1 week they are investigating. I hope--and I don't know 
the answer to this, but I hope what the President said yesterday; that 
he and his administration are not constraining the FBI, and I am 
paraphrasing, not using exact words--that is the policy the 
administration transmitted directly to the FBI. I hope there is no 
variance or difference between what the President said and what his

[[Page S6427]]

administration is indicating directly to the FBI. I don't know, but I 
hope there is a consistency there.
  I wish to wrap up because I know we have to do that. The Supreme 
Court decides, as so many Americans understand, cases of monumental 
importance to our Nation. These cases will impact the day-to-day lives 
of Americans for decades, if not generations, and many questions will 
be decided by the Supreme Court. Let me just list a few: the American 
people's ability to access affordable healthcare, for example; their 
opportunity to work in an environment free from discrimination; their 
ability to access the justice system and have their day in court, often 
against powerful corporate interests; and, as I said at the outset, the 
basic rights of working men and women, including the right to organize 
and the right to bargain collectively. I hope that when Members of the 
Senate are making a determination about this nomination, they will take 
those interests and those concerns into their deliberations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        FAA Reauthorization Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, aviation continues to play a significant 
role in the American economy and in American life. The industry 
contributes $1.6 trillion to the economy on an annual basis and 
supports more than 10.6 million jobs.
  In 2017, 850 million passengers boarded U.S. airline flights for both 
domestic and international trips. Americans rely on planes to do their 
jobs, to catch up with far-flung friends, and to take a much needed 
break from work, to make it to important family events.
  Every few years, Congress has to pass legislation to reauthorize the 
Federal Aviation Administration, the government agency responsible for 
everything from overseeing the safety of the national airspace to 
providing grants for critical infrastructure needs at airports. Passing 
that reauthorization bill gives us the opportunity to take a look at 
aviation as a whole and to hear from manufacturers, airport 
administrators, airlines, and the flying public. That is exactly what 
we did with the reauthorization bill that is before the Senate today.
  In the lead-up to this bill, we spent months conducting research, 
holding hearings in the Commerce Committee which I chair, and listening 
to the aviation community and to airline passengers. Then we took that 
information and used it to develop legislation that will strengthen 
aviation, promote economic growth, enhance transportation safety and 
security, and improve the flying experience for the public.
  I am proud of the bill we have before us today and grateful for the 
hard work done by Members of both parties in the House and Senate.
  Obviously, security is a massive priority for the airline industry 
and for the flying public and for the Federal Government. Terrorist 
groups continue to target passenger aircraft and the aviation sector, 
but security measures, of course, can also lead to frustration. Who 
hasn't been caught in a long TSA line desperately hoping to make it 
through in time to catch a flight? The bill before us today will both 
boost security and help reduce some of the delays associated with 
security checks.
  For starters, the bill represents the first-ever reauthorization of 
the Transportation Security Administration in the history of the 
agency. It establishes a 5-year term for the head of the TSA which will 
increase leadership stability at the TSA and promote the efficient and 
effective deployment of security initiatives.
  The bill also puts in place measures to speed the deployment of the 
latest, most effective screening technologies so we can keep up with 
the latest threats to aviation. It requires an agencywide review at the 
TSA to look at how to eliminate duplication and redundant senior 
personnel to ensure that the agency operates in the most efficient 
manner possible.
  This legislation also authorizes more K-9 teams to be deployed in 
airports and other transportation facilities around the United States, 
and it creates an outside certification process to enable faster 
deployment. This is good news both for security and for passengers. K-9 
teams enhance security at airports, and security checkpoints with K-9 
teams can operate substantially more quickly.
  Currently, a majority of explosive detection dogs in the United 
States come from overseas. Being able to obtain more of these dogs in 
the United States would reduce the cost and speed up the process of 
acquiring K-9 teams. That is why this bill helps build our capacity to 
test and certify explosive detection dogs here at home.
  In another victory for anyone who has ever waited in a long security 
line, this bill also requires the TSA to post real-time security 
checkpoint wait times not just at the airport but also online. That 
means you will be able to check the security wait time while you are 
still at home so you will know if you need to leave for a flight or if 
you can spend a few more minutes reviewing your packing list.
  The bill will also make it easier for travelers to sign up for 
Precheck and to receive expedited screening--something that will speed 
up checkpoint wait times and enhance public area security for all 
passengers.
  While we are on the subject of making life easier for passengers, 
this bill contains some commonsense reforms that will improve the 
flying experience. For starters, this legislation prohibits airlines 
from involuntarily bumping from a flight passengers who have already 
boarded. I think we can all agree that once you have boarded a plane, 
you shouldn't be kicked off until you have arrived at your destination.

  I also think everyone would agree that when you pay for a service, 
you should get it. That is why this legislation requires airlines to 
promptly return fees for services they don't deliver. If you pay for a 
seat assignment, for example, you should get that seat. If you don't, 
you should get your money back promptly.
  This legislation also directs the FAA to set minimum legroom 
requirements for seats on commercials flights to ensure safety.
  As I mentioned above, the aviation industry makes a big contribution 
to our economy, and the legislation before the Senate today will help 
this industry continue to compete and innovate. The FAA sets standards 
for aircraft designs and other aircraft components, and it certifies 
these designs to ensure they meet specific requirements. This 
legislation will take excess bureaucracy out of the certification 
process so that U.S. air companies can get their products to market on 
time and successfully compete in the global marketplace. It will also 
enable U.S. manufacturers to fully use certification authorities that 
have been delegated to them.
  The bill before us today also supports the development of the air-
based technologies of the future, including the return of supersonic 
aircraft and the integration of unmanned aircraft systems--more 
commonly known as drones--into the international airspace. The bill 
advances the development of low-altitude traffic management services, 
which are essential as drone use becomes more widespread. It also 
provides more flexibility to the FAA to approve advanced drone 
operations, like extended flights or flights over crowds of people, and 
it directs the FAA to authorize operators of small drones to carry 
packages, meaning that sometime in the near future, your Amazon Prime 
order could arrive via drone.
  In the wake of serious accidents on our Nation's roads, railroads, or 
in the sky, Congress turns to the National Transportation Safety Board 
to get the facts and to tell us what went wrong. The legislation before 
us today will strengthen the National Transportation Safety Board's 
investigation process and make more information available to the 
public. It will also expand access to assistance for the families of 
victims of rail and aviation accidents.
  There are a lot of other good provisions in this bill, as well, 
everything from infrastructure investment to upgrades in safety 
requirements. Mostly unrelated to aviation, this bill also includes 
critically needed disaster response reforms and a down payment to help 
communities in the Carolinas recover from Hurricane Florence.

[[Page S6428]]

  I am very proud of the bipartisan bill we have produced and the 
advancements it will make for all stakeholders in the aviation 
industry--from manufacturers to airline workers, to passengers. I thank 
the ranking member, Senator Nelson, and our counterparts on the 
Transportation Committee and the Homeland Security Committee in the 
House of Representatives, as well as other Senate committees that 
contributed to this bipartisan legislation. The members of our 
committees and their staffs put in a lot of hard work on this bill, and 
our Nation's aviation and air transportation system will be safer as a 
result.
  I look forward to casting a vote for this bill and getting this 
legislation on the President's desk and signed into law. I encourage 
all of my colleagues here in the Senate to support this legislation 
when we have the opportunity to vote on it, hopefully, later today.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________