Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Tuesday, October 9; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 3021, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to occur at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Coons.

Mr. President, the Senate is considering the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

When the noise fades, when the uncorroborated mud washes away, what is left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us--an acclaimed judge whom peers and colleagues praise in the very strongest terms, a jurist whom the American Bar Association awarded its very highest rating unanimously--``well qualified.''

Here is what the ABA says it takes to earn that distinction:

To merit a rating of ``Well Qualified,'' the nominee must

be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal

community; have outstanding legal ability, breadth of

experience and the highest reputation for integrity; and

demonstrate the capacity for sound judicial temperament.

This is the nonpartisan test that my friend the Democratic leader, among others, used to call the gold standard. Judge Kavanaugh passed that with flying colors.

To be clear, this seal of approval comes from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary--an independent entity within the organization. Even after the ABA's President

tried to play politics with the nomination last week, the Standing Committee reaffirmed its rating yet again. Unanimously well qualified-- that is Brett Kavanaugh.

So how did we end up where we are today? How did we get here? How did we get from a chorus of expert praise and professional respect to wild tales of violent gangs, sexual assault rings, fist fights on boats in Rhode Island harbors, and the possibility--get this--of an argument at a college bar?

Several weeks ago, a confidential allegation of misconduct from nearly 40 years ago was leaked to the press. Since then, other allegations have poured forth. Many were just patently ridiculous--a feeding frenzy of ridiculous accusations. While some cheered on the feeding frenzy for political purposes, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and his staff rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They promptly investigated the varied allegations that materialized at the last minute.

Chairman Grassley reopened the public hearing so that Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh could speak directly to those claims under oath. By the way, that was after he offered Dr. Ford the option to tell her story at any place of her choosing--either here or in California, either in public or in private, either with staff or with Members. It was an offer that, according to Dr. Ford's testimony, was seemingly never actually communicated to her by her lawyers despite a professional requirement to do so.

Now, of course, the FBI has completed a supplemental background investigation and delivered its results to us here in the Senate. This is now the seventh time the FBI has thoroughly reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's background--seven FBI investigations. So what have we learned? What do the facts and the evidence tell us after seven FBI investigations? The fact is, these allegations have not been corroborated. None of the allegations have been corroborated by the seven FBI investigations--not in the new FBI investigation, not anywhere. None of these last-minute allegations have been corroborated, as is confirmed by the seventh and latest FBI investigation.

As Chairman Grassley stated this morning, ``Neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI can locate any third parties who can attest to any of these allegations.'' There is no backup from any witnesses, including those specifically named as eyewitnesses by the people who brought the allegations in the first place. Let me say that again. There is no backup from any witnesses, including those specifically named as eyewitnesses by the people who brought these allegations. In addition, one person has completely recanted their whole wild story. Another accuser went on television and backpedaled from many of their own ridiculous charges.

The facts do not support the allegations levied at Judge Kavanaugh's character. Instead, many of the facts actually support Judge Kavanaugh's strong, unequivocal denial, which he repeatedly stated to committee investigators under penalty of felony and which he firmly restated under oath last Thursday before the full committee and the American people, which aligns with the testimony of hundreds--literally hundreds--of character witnesses who have known him over the years.

For goodness' sake, this is the United States of America. Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. Nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in the United States of America. The Senate should not set a fundamentally un-American precedent here.

Judge Kavanaugh's right to basic fairness does not disappear just because some disagree with his judicial philosophy. Our society is not a place where uncorroborated allegations of misconduct from nearly 40 years ago--allegations which are vigorously disputed--can nullify someone's career or destroy their reputation. Is that what the Senate is going to be known for--your nomination comes up here, and we destroy your reputation? Is that what the Senate is going to participate in?

Above the partisan noise, beyond this shameful spectacle, which is an embarrassment to the Senate, what will endure are the actual facts before us--the actual facts. Upon reviewing them, only one question is left for us to answer: Is Judge Brett Kavanaugh qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?

There is a good reason the political opponents of this nomination have never wanted to litigate that issue. Oh, no. They don't want to talk about that. There is a good reason they let the politics of personal destruction run away ahead of the facts. It is in an effort to dodge that very good question because Brett Kavanaugh is stunningly and totally qualified for this job.

We already know this, but, for starters, his academic and legal credentials are second to none. He graduated from Yale with honors and went on to Yale Law School. Then came not one, not two, but three clerkships in our Nation's Federal courts, ending up with Justice Kennedy. His career continued with work in the Office of Independent Counsel and the Office of White House Counsel.

That was only the beginning. For the last 12 years, Brett Kavanaugh has served on what is widely considered the second highest court in our land, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written more than 300 judicial opinions. Several have formed the basis of later rulings by the Supreme Court itself.

The litany of accomplishments is a fact--a fact. It is a matter of public record.

Just as telling are all the accounts of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the person, that have been volunteered by those who have known him every step of the way over the years. We have heard from literally hundreds of character witnesses who have heaped praise on the Brett Kavanaugh they know--the loyal friend and teammate; the standout student; the talented, hard-working colleague; the brilliant legal writer; the respected role model and mentor, particularly to women; and the devoted husband, father, and coach. These letters and recorded testimony were offered by men and women with nothing to gain for themselves; they were just glad to tell the truth about a nominee who they know possesses the character, temperament, and qualifications for this important job.

Judge Kavanaugh's professor and others who knew him at Yale describe ``a true intellectual,'' ``a leading thinker,'' and ``a wonderful mentor and teacher.'' One goes so far as saying: ``It is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.''

His former law clerks, in full-throated support, say that Judge Kavanaugh's work ethic ``flows from a fundamental humility.'' They say that he gives ``unflinchingly honest advice'' and ``listens carefully to the views of his colleagues and clerks, even--indeed, especially-- when they differ from his own.''

His legal peers here in Washington of all political persuasions haven't minced their words either. They deem him ``unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperament'' and warn the Senate not to miss this opportunity to put ``such a strong advocate for decency and civility on our Nation's highest court.''

Let's not lose sight of the opportunity before us. This process has been ruled by fear, anger, and underhanded gamesmanship for too long. It is time for us to stand up to this kind of thing. We owe it to the American people not to be intimidated by these tactics. We owe it to the American people to underscore that you are innocent until proven guilty.

It is the Senate that is on trial here. What kind of image will we convey to the public? Can we be scared by all these people rampaging through the halls, accosting Members at airports, and coming to their homes, trying to intimidate the Senate into defeating a good man? Are we going to allow this to happen in this country?

We will not pretend that partisan histrionics take away the basic fairness that every American deserves. We will not be hoodwinked by those who have tried hard to smear this good man and to drag him through the mud. And when that didn't work, they turned on the dime and started claiming his real sin was that he spoke up too forcefully in defense of his good name and his family, or they decided he didn't have a judicial temperament because he aggressively defended his good name

against this outrageous smear conducted in conjunction with Senate Democrats.

Who among us would not have been outraged by having a lifetime record drug through the mud with accusations that cannot be proven and a blatant attempt to decide--on the part of at least some Senate Democrats--that the presumption of innocence no longer applies in this country? What kind of person wouldn't have been upset about that?

They claim he spoke too forcefully in defense of himself after being accused of such outrageous behavior that cannot be proven. I admire him for standing up for himself and standing up for his family. I would be shocked if it were not done in an aggressive fashion, for goodness' sake.

Let's reclaim this moment for what it should be--a chance to elevate a stunningly talented and impressive jurist to an important office for which he is so well qualified, so completely and totally qualified. It is a golden opportunity to give our great Nation precisely the kind of brilliant, fairminded, and collegial Supreme Court Justice that the Court deserves. This is the good that Senators will have an opportunity to do. We have a chance to do good here and to underscore the basic tenet of fairness in our country.

I filed cloture on the nomination yesterday evening, and I will be proud to vote to advance this nomination tomorrow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 636.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 642 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the Whitehouse amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 668, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 669, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 397, S. 995.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 533, S. 440.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 537, S. 2074.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

The bill (S. 2074), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Friday, October 5; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned following the remarks of Senators Merkley, Bennet, and Portman.

Mr. President, it is safe to say the national spectacle the professional left has created around Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process has now reached some kind of fever pitch in the 17 days since Dr. Ford's confidential correspondence was leaked to the press--17 days of a feeding frenzy on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, unlike anything we have seen in recent memory.

Since then, a literal mudslide of wild, uncorroborated accusations has literally poured out--each more outlandish than the last. This mudslide has been actively embraced, urged on, and capitalized upon by the Democrats inside this Chamber and by the organized far-left special interests outside. It hasn't been about getting to the truth or giving anyone a fair hearing; it has only been about one thing--the far left's hunger to bring down Judge Kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary.

If facts and evidence couldn't get the job done, then intimidation tactics and bullying would have to do. Sometimes this intimidation campaign has been aimed at the nominee. Colleagues, including my friend the Democratic leader, have tried to get Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw from this process because of these uncorroborated and sometimes absolutely ridiculous allegations.

When that didn't work, then the far left tried to bully and intimidate Members of this body--Republican U.S. Senators. They tried to bully and intimidate us. One of our colleagues and his family were effectively run out of a restaurant by these people in recent days. Another reported having protesters physically block his car door, and some have seen organized far-left protesters camp out at their homes.

I am not suggesting we are the victims here, but I want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my Members around the hall here or harassing them at the airports or going to their homes: We will not be intimidated by these people. There is no chance in the world they are going to scare us out of doing our duty. I do not care how many Members they chase or how many people they harass here in the halls. I want to make one thing perfectly clear: We will not be intimidated by these people. This is all part of the organized effort to delay, obstruct, and intimidate those of us who will be voting this week.

A few days ago, I did something I rarely do: I offered a prediction. I predicted that here in the last few days before the Senate is to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, the Democratic conference would continue to make good on its leader's promise and fight this nomination with everything it has got. I predicted that, on a dime,

the very supplemental background investigation for which my Democratic friends had clamored would suddenly become insufficient and that no matter what accommodations would be made, no matter what agreements would be reached, the Senate Democrats would find more excuses to continue moving the goalposts one more time.

Granted, this was not exactly a radical prediction. This body and this Nation have spent months watching their friends across the aisle grasp at every imaginable excuse to delay this process and damage this nominee. So I felt pretty safe in saying the last goalposts would soon be on the move yet again, but even I was not sure it would happen this quickly.

Let's start with the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. In a letter released on September 23, they suggested that the FBI had ample time to conduct a supplemental investigation before the hearing that was scheduled just 4 days later. They insisted an inquiry would ``not take a `tremendous amount of time.' '' The Democratic leader brushed aside the notion that this--the seventh background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh--would delay the process, saying, ``It will only take a few days.'' Well, that was, of course, before we agreed last Friday to delay the proceedings by no more than 1 week to accommodate just such an inquiry.

Naturally, we are now hearing a different tune. Yesterday, the ranking member stated her view that voting this Friday on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination as planned would be ``too soon.'' There go those goalposts again, moving right on down. In that same letter, the Democratic leader and the senior Senator from California called for the supplemental investigation because ``conducting background investigations on nominees has long been the FBI's standard practice.'' Here is what ``standard practice'' means: The FBI conducts interviews, prepares a careful report, and makes it available for Senators to review. ``Standard practice'' does not mean what the Democratic leader decided to demand for the first time yesterday now that the FBI is concluding its review. You get the picture.

As it concludes the review, it is not enough. We are to have yet another delay so FBI agents are made to appear--listen to this--for in- person briefings and so that Democrats can cross-examine the agents to see if they are satisfied with how they did their jobs. Is anybody surprised about this? There go those goalposts again.

Well, guess what. Our Democratic colleagues have made it abundantly clear they will never ever be satisfied, not ever. Does anyone really think the same people who said any nominee of this President would result ``in the destruction of the Constitution'' will be satisfied? Does anyone really think the same people who called Judge Kavanaugh ``evil'' long before they heard one word of testimony from anyone will be satisfied? Does anyone really think the same people who said their goal was to delay this nomination past the election will be satisfied? To ask the question is to answer it. If my friends across the aisle were to have their way, the goalposts on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would be in another time zone by now.

Our Democratic colleagues are quickly running out of material. One of their last efforts seems to be the new argument--notwithstanding whether these allegations can be corroborated in any way--that the real crime here is that Judge Kavanaugh stood up for his family and took umbrage at this disgraceful spectacle. He is now expected to witness this disgraceful spectacle and not get upset about it.

I would ask any of my colleagues: How would you feel if your entire reputation had been destroyed in this mudslide? Would you be calm about it?

For weeks now, a national media feeding frenzy has literally dragged Judge Kavanaugh and his family through the mud. He has been subjected to the most vile and disgusting accusations. His wife has been threatened and his young daughters traumatized.

In many instances, my Democratic colleagues have ushered on these absurdly disgusting accusations and tried to give them a veneer of credibility, specifically citing them now as a reason why Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Our Democratic colleagues are enabling this mudslide and encouraging it. Now the same Democratic Senators have the temerity to say Judge Kavanaugh disqualified himself for the Supreme Court because he got a little testy at the hearing after they drug him through the mud--because he told them how much damage these accusations had caused him and his family.

Let's get one thing straight right now: I don't want to meet the man or woman who wouldn't be frustrated and angry by a coordinated strategy to destroy his or her good name on the altar of partisan politics.

The Senate has received an incredible volume of testimony about Judge Kavanaugh's exemplary judicial temperament. We have heard from faculty of his alma mater, who called him ``a fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law'' and ``commands wide and deep respect'' among his legal peers, and from his former law clerks who say: ``He listens carefully to the views of his colleagues and clerks, even--indeed, especially--when they differ from his own.'' Yet some still prioritize partisan point-scoring ahead of Judge Kavanaugh's actual record.

We have heard overwhelming testimony that Judge Kavanaugh's time on the Federal bench has been defined by equanimity, even-handedness, and fair treatment of all parties.

It is time to put this embarrassing spectacle behind us. The American people are sick of the display that has been put on here in the U.S. Senate in the guise of a confirmation process.

The FBI is finishing up a supplemental background investigation. It will soon add this information to Judge Kavanaugh's file for Senators' consideration. This is the standard practice. Then, pursuant to last week's agreement of a delay no longer than 1 week, the Senate will vote on this nomination this week. The Senate will vote on this nomination this week.

When we do, we will be voting on one of the most impressive and most stunningly qualified Supreme Court nominees in our Nation's history. We will be voting to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice who possesses sterling academic credentials, widely acknowledged legal brilliance, an exemplary legal temperament, and a proven commitment to complete fairness on the bench. That is what the Senate will do this week.