Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and the senior Senator from Arkansas be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions during the upcoming recess of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 3 p.m., Monday, October 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:21 p.m., recessed until Monday, October 1, 2018, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, tomorrow morning, the Senate and the American people will hear from Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford under oath. We will hear sworn testimony from both of them regarding the allegation of 30-plus-year-old misconduct that Dr. Ford has raised.

It goes without saying, but it bears repeating: Sexual assault is completely abhorrent. Everyone deserves to be safe. So I am glad Dr. Ford will be heard.

I would like to particularly thank Chairman Grassley, who worked tirelessly to establish a fair process and a secure, comfortable setting for this to take place. He gave Dr. Ford the opportunity to testify in public or in private or to speak with investigators who would meet her anywhere she wished or to conduct the entire interview by phone. He has brought a patient professionalism to this process--one that stands in stark contrast to those on the other side of the aisle who self-describe as ``Spartacus'' and play to the television cameras. Dr. Ford will be heard, thanks to Chairman Grassley and despite the irresponsibility of Senate Democrats, who ignored her allegation for weeks and then discarded her request for confidentiality and leaked it to the press.

Let me walk you through this again. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee received a letter from Dr. Ford all the way back in July in which she stated her allegation and asked for confidentiality. That was in July. The committee's thorough review of Judge Kavanaugh was just getting started. There was ample time to vet this allegation in a serious and bipartisan manner that would have maintained confidentiality and honored Dr. Ford's request for privacy.

All the Democrats needed to do was go through proper channels and share the information with their Republican colleagues so the committee could tackle it together, but that is not what Senate Democrats did. This is the Democratic caucus whose leader, my friend the senior Senator from New York, said just hours after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated that he would ``oppose him with everything I've got.'' This was just hours after the nomination. This is the Democratic caucus of which several Members preemptively announced fill-in-the-blank opposition to any nominee before

Judge Kavanaugh had even been named. This is the Democratic caucus that spent all summer searching for reasons to delay, delay, delay this nomination. This was because there were not enough documents, because there were too many documents, because of unrelated headlines--you name it.

No, these Democratic colleagues did not treat Dr. Ford or her allegation with the seriousness and discretion she deserved. Apparently, they took no meaningful action for weeks with respect to her claim. Then, finally, at the eleventh hour, when its introduction was virtually certain to introduce further delay, they got it to the press. So much for Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality, I guess.

What lessons can we draw from all of this? If you write to the Senate Democrats in complete confidence about an extremely sensitive matter, you will soon wind up a household name. If you are a public servant whose confirmation those on the far left happen to oppose because they dislike the fact that you will interpret the law and the Constitution according to what they mean rather than what those on the far left wish they would mean, they will not hesitate to weaponize uncorroborated allegations and drag your name and your family right through the mud. That is what these guys will do to you--uncorroborated allegations, which Judge Kavanaugh has denied repeatedly in the strongest terms in public and to the Senate investigators, all under penalty of felony.

Let's not forget that Dr. Ford's account identifies three other supposed witnesses, and each of these individuals has denied participation in or recollection of any such event--also under penalty of felony in all cases. One of the alleged witnesses is a longtime friend of Dr. Ford's. She has stated not only that she does not recall any such party but that she doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh. No corroboration. No supporting evidence before us. Just Dr. Ford's allegation.

By any normal standard of American justice, this is nowhere near enough to destroy someone's reputation or nullify one's career, but some of our colleagues are trying to move the goalposts.

The junior Senator from Delaware asserted recently on television that it is Judge Kavanaugh who bears the burden of disproving these allegations. Let me say that again. The junior Senator from Delaware said Judge Kavanaugh bears the burden of disproving these allegations. Guilty until proven innocent--in our country?

Similarly, the junior Senator from Hawaii has implied that Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve a presumption of innocence. The junior Senator from Hawaii has said that Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve a presumption of innocence because she does not agree with his judicial philosophy.

Just yesterday, the Democratic leader said that because we aren't in a criminal courtroom, ``there's no presumption of innocence or guilt here when you have a nominee before you.'' In America, somebody is saying that? Well, it will not surprise you to know the Democrats haven't always taken that position.

Back in 1991, when our friend Senator Joe Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he had this to say to Judge Clarence Thomas when the committee was evaluating an allegation against him.

Joe Biden said:

The presumption is with you. With me, the presumption is

with you, and in my opinion it should be with you until all

the evidence is in and people make a judgment.

That was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, during the Clarence Thomas proceeding.

My colleagues would do well to remember this commonsense principle. After all, this is America. Every American understands the presumption of innocence.

I am glad that Chairman Grassley, his staff, and committee investigators have worked so hard to clean up this mess and put together a fair process. I am encouraged by the committee's choice of Rachel Mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience in sensitive investigations, who was recognized with an award by Arizona's then-Democratic Governor, Janet Napolitano, to lend expertise to this important process.

It is time for Senators to hear from both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh under oath. Tomorrow, we will do just that. Then it will be time to vote.

Madam President, in the past week and a half, the American people have seen a confusing and chaotic process play out right here in the Senate.

They have seen uncorroborated, decades-old allegations of wrongdoing pop up in the press at the last minute, just as Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process was winding down.

They have seen an accuser's request for privacy disregarded and ordinary standards of fairness completely discarded.

They have seen a disturbing pattern play out on two separate occasions already. It goes like this: No. 1, our Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee get wind of or maybe even go looking for a sensitive allegation. Second, they decline to share it with the majority, meaning the committee cannot promptly take appropriate action. Third, they allow the allegation to leak to the press at the last moment.

Fortunately, in stark contrast to this malpractice, the American people have also seen the exemplary manner in which Chairman Grassley has led the Judiciary Committee throughout the entire process. The chairman has acted swiftly and transparently in pursuit of the truth. He has treated Dr. Ford with kindness and respect. Acknowledging that the irresponsible and irregular manner in which her allegation was brought to light was no fault of hers, the chairman opened a dialogue with Dr. Ford's counsel. He deferred to her preferences on the timing of her hearing and a number of other details.

I will quote from a letter the chairman wrote to Dr. Ford yesterday. Here is what Chairman Grassley had to say:

I am committed to fair and respectful treatment of you. . .

. [The] hearing on Thursday will allow you to testify and

also will allow the nominee to address the allegations. . . .

Both of you deserve a credible and fair process in a secure

and professional setting.

That was Chairman Grassley.

So we have one side that is handling these sensitive matters with dignity, with professionalism, by the book, and we have another side that chose to sit on allegations and keep them secret until they were leaked to the press--the same side as the Democratic leader's, who had already made up his mind mere hours after Judge Kavanaugh was chosen and said: ``I will oppose him with everything I've got.'' Well, apparently so.

Look, the American people know that sexual misconduct is gravely serious. They expect this to be treated seriously and addressed promptly. That is precisely what Chairman Grassley has done and is doing. But the American people also insist that vague, unsubstantiated, and uncorroborated allegations of 30-plus-year-old misconduct--where all the supposed witnesses either totally deny it or can't confirm it-- is nowhere near grounds to nullify someone's career or destroy their good name. Justice matters. Evidence matters. Facts matter.

Let's look at one of the supposed witnesses, Ms. Leland Keyser. She is not a friend of Judge Kavanaugh's. In fact, she says she doesn't even know him. Rather, she is a longtime friend of Professor Ford's. What does Ms. Keyser say about the allegations? Through her lawyer, she says that she ``does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.'' In other words, she backs up Judge Kavanaugh's statement.

Look, this is America here we are talking about. We are supposed to uphold fairness and a presumption of innocence. Everyone deserves better than this--not just Judge Kavanaugh; everyone deserves better than this.

I was surprised and disappointed by the recent statements on television from some of my Democratic colleagues, including one statement this weekend that Judge Kavanaugh is not owed the presumption of innocence. One of our Democratic colleagues said Judge Kavanaugh is not owed the presumption of innocence, because they disagree with his judicial philosophy. That is not a standard we want to set in America.

No matter how loudly my Democratic colleagues try to say otherwise, we have never been and do not wish to be a society in which a single, uncorroborated allegation--disputed by everyone who supposedly has some knowledge of it--can float out across decades and wield veto power over somebody's life.

Judge Kavanaugh is an immensely bright and qualified nominee. We have heard from legal experts and scholars that he is one of the fairest and most brilliant jurists anywhere in our country. We have heard from hundreds of character witnesses from his high school days to the present who vouch for his character and his integrity.

Yet the need for a fair process runs even deeper than Judge Kavanaugh himself. As he wrote in his own letter to Chairman Grassley yesterday, the weaponization of unsubstantiated smears--that is what we have here, the weaponization of unsubstantiated smears--``will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.''

This isn't what Members want the Senate to be. This isn't what Americans want our society to be. So I look forward to hearing from both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh under oath this Thursday morning. I am glad we will be able to hear testimony from both. Then I look forward to an up-or-down vote on this nomination right here on the Senate floor.

Madam President, on an entirely different matter, as I noted yesterday, the Senate continues to make progress on critical national priorities. We are restoring the regular order appropriations process; we are securing commonsense reforms to infrastructure policy and the longest authorization of FAA in over 35 years; and, this week, we are confirming more of the President's well-qualified nominees. Yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Jackie Wolcott as the U.S. Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and to the United Nations in Vienna. Today, we turn to consider the nomination of Peter A. Feldman to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I urge each of our colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Mr. Feldman and in continuing to process nominees for vital roles in the executive branch.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on Executive Calendar No. 941 be considered expired at 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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, at the end of this month, my friend Jim Paxton will end his 32-year tenure with the Paducah Sun newspaper in western Kentucky. Through his service as the paper's editor and publisher, Jim has shown a dedication to his community and his organization, and he deserves our sincere gratitude. Looking back at his experience with the paper, Jim called it, ``the best job a person could ask for.'' It is my privilege to congratulate him on his remarkable career in journalism.

Founded more than 120 years ago as the Paducah Evening Sun, Jim's newspaper has always been a family business. Before joining the paper, Jim worked with other news organizations in Nashville and Lexington and went to law school. However, after a tragic aviation accident that claimed the life of the Sun's previous editor, Jack Paxton, Jim left his legal career behind and agreed to lead the local institution.

Jim began at the Sun in 1986 and soon after earned the title of editor. With his brothers David and Richard, who later joined the company, the family expanded their media offering to better serve their community. The story of Paducah is intertwined with the region's river system, and the Sun has the news that its readers need for their day. There is a great deal of local news to cover. Paducah is the heart of our Nation's inland waterways network, and it is home to both the National Quilt Museum and the U.S. Department of Energy's Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Further, in 2013, the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, designated Paducah as the world's seventh City of Crafts and Folk Art. The Paducah Sun, under Jim's leadership, has kept a close eye on each of these aspects of the city's life and heritage.

In recent years, Jim has taken a leading role in crafting the Sun's editorial page, a page of his paper I rarely miss. I have especially enjoyed each of my opportunities to meet with the paper's editorial board to discuss the issues most vital to Paducah's future. By presenting a fair and even-handed opinion to his audience, Jim and the Sun's staff have made themselves a central feature of the day for many western Kentuckians.

When Jim leaves his post at the end of this month, he does so after a career filled with distinction and one he can be proud of. Whatever the future may hold for Jim and his family, I send them my sincere best wishes. Families throughout Paducah and across the Commonwealth have benefited from Jim's diligence and thoughtfulness, and I would like to express my profound gratitude to him. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Jim Paxton, the gold standard for a professional newsman, on a successful career and wishing him a happy retirement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 3389 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3139 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

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 Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4958 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 648, 649, 650, 651, and 652.

I know of no further debate on the resolutions en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preambles be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 48.

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