[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 155 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S6215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
announced that there would be an additional public hearing to address 
the allegations of misconduct that had been made against Judge Brett 
Kavanaugh, who has been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. So far, 
all we have is an accusation--one that, frankly, has a lot of holes in 
it as far as the time and circumstances under which this alleged event 
occurred. Nonetheless, it is a very serious allegation about misconduct 
that one claims happened about 36 years ago when she, Judge Kavanaugh, 
and others were involved as teenagers.
  Judge Kavanaugh and the other individual allegedly involved have said 
that this incident did not happen. They unequivocally deny the claim, 
and, thus far, no other individuals have corroborated the accuser's 
statement.
  The reason we find ourselves in this very unusual situation, where we 
have actually had the confirmation hearing of the nominee and we find 
it necessary to have a supplemental or additional hearing is that our 
Democratic colleagues failed to raise this accusation so that it could 
be handled in a bipartisan, regular manner in which the Judiciary 
Committee handles background investigations, understanding that when 
somebody goes through a background investigation, sometimes information 
comes up that is particularly sensitive, sometimes embarrassing; maybe 
it is about financial matters or other personal matters. So the 
practice of the Judiciary Committee is to have those background 
investigations handled with great care by specially cleared 
individuals. Then, following the hearing, the open hearing, that 
information will be shared with members of the committee, and they can 
then ask any questions they may want to ask in a closed session.
  We did not have that opportunity because the ranking member did not 
even alert members of her own party about the existence of this 
accusation that she had had for some 6 weeks. So we weren't able to do 
the sort of due diligence that has come to be the practice of the 
Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. The ranking member, who was 
forwarded the allegation, did not even attend the closed session where 
we considered the background investigation that had been done on Judge 
Kavanaugh, and, as I said, she didn't do anything with the allegation 
for almost 2 months.
  What is clear is that this allegation has been handled--or I should 
say egregiously mishandled--up until now. But that is no excuse for us 
to continue to do the same. We need to return this process to its 
ordinary rules and procedures. We will take these accusations with the 
seriousness they deserve, and that is in a way that is fair to both the 
alleged victim and the judge himself.
  Because of our friends on the other side's fondness for gotcha 
moments and political theater throughout the confirmation process, so 
far that fairness has mostly been lost. It has been denied the victim, 
who said that she wanted privacy, and it has been denied Judge 
Kavanaugh, who has flatly disavowed the claims. He had no opportunity 
during his confirmation hearing, either in open or in closed session, 
to answer questions about these allegations. This has really been a 
driveby attack on the character of this judge.
  Again, it is a serious accusation that we will take--and have taken--
seriously, but, unfortunately, this process has gotten away from being 
about getting to the truth and has been more about gamesmanship and 
delay. The timing and the way in which this allegation was sprung 
attest to that. That is why, initially, I was somewhat skeptical about 
rewarding this bad behavior by calling for another public hearing. I 
had confidence in the committee's usual process for dealing with 
situations like this, which would ensure that both sides would be heard 
and that sensitive matters would be handled with the sensitivity they 
deserve.
  When I spoke to him yesterday, Judge Kavanaugh's commitment to 
transparency and eagerness to address these false allegations head-on 
was clear.
  When members of the committee met yesterday to discuss a possible 
path forward, we agreed that a supplemental hearing was in order. I 
went along with that consensus point of view.
  I want to commend Chairman Grassley for his leadership, and I 
certainly support his decision to hold an additional hearing next 
Monday. As he said yesterday, anyone who comes forward under 
circumstances like this deserves to be heard in an ``appropriate, 
precedented and respectful manner.'' How our colleagues across the 
aisle conduct themselves will prove whether they are actually 
interested in getting to the truth of these allegations or whether this 
is just an exercise in character assassination.

                          ____________________