[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6286-S6290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday the Republican leader began 
his speech with a quote of mine. Let me begin mine with a quote of his. 
``We're going to plow right through it.'' That is Leader McConnell: We 
are going to plow right through it. He was speaking to the Values Voter 
Summit about serious allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court 
nominee Judge Kavanaugh. ``We're going to plow right through it.'' Does 
that sound like someone who is treating these allegations with respect 
and fairness and evenhandedness? Does it sound like someone who wants 
to get at the real facts no matter where they fall? Certainly not to me 
and not to the American people.
  Then, yesterday, Leader McConnell brought the debate to a new low by 
calling the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh a ``Democratic smear 
job.'' Never mind that Leader McConnell has no evidence--no evidence 
whatsoever--that the recent allegations were contrived by Democrats. 
They were not. Never mind that Leader McConnell has no evidence--no 
evidence whatsoever--that the events in question took place or didn't 
take place. It seems likely they did, but he has no evidence one way or 
the other because he will not even ask for an investigation of it.
  He then unilaterally declared the accounts of multiple women to be 
``manufactured mud,'' part of a partisan smear campaign. Let me address 
these comments directly that these allegations are part of a 
``Democratic smear job.''
  First, these allegations did not originate with Democrats. These 
women came forward with principle and courage, knowing they would face 
abuse and lasting personal pain for doing so, but realizing they had an 
obligation to the country, they did so anyway.
  Dr. Ford came forward and shared her story voluntarily and on her own 
initiative. She wasn't put up by a Democrat or Republican or anybody 
else. It came from her heart. The idea that these allegations were 
cooked up or instigated or encouraged by Democrats in Congress is 
patently absurd and a real insult to the members of the Judiciary 
Committee and the Members of this Chamber. It is against the spirit, if 
not the letter, of our Senate rules.
  Addressing the second part of McConnell's claim, that is even worse. 
Democrats and Republican are always throwing charges at each other, but 
the idea that this is a smear job--whatever you think of the veracity 
of the allegations, it is shameful--shameful--to doubt the women's 
sincerity. To say they are making it up and to discredit their sincere 
testimony is nothing more than a partisan hit job.
  For too long, people in positions of power have dismissed accounts 
made by women before any evidence could be brought forward as 
politically motivated or character assassination. We have come a long 
way in this country, and we have to be better than that--better than 
the low standard Senator McConnell has set.
  At a minimum, we must respect these women and Judge Kavanaugh by 
handling these allegations with the seriousness they deserve. Leader 
McConnell owes an apology to Dr. Ford for labeling her allegations a 
``smear job.'' Let me repeat that. Leader McConnell owes an apology to 
Dr. Ford for labeling her allegations a ``smear job,'' and he should 
apologize to her immediately.
  It is galling--galling--for the Republican leader, who has done more 
than maybe anyone else to politicize the Supreme Court nomination 
process, to make these trumped-up, hyperbolic charges of partisanship 
by Democrats.
  It is a sad habit of Republicans to accuse the other side of doing 
what they, in fact, are doing. It happens over and over. That seems to 
be the case here, as Democrats have over and over urged the FBI to help 
investigate these allegations, to get to the bottom of it, to get to 
the truth, while Republicans block any investigation and plow right 
through with their nominee.
  It is simple. If Leader McConnell were truly concerned about these 
allegations being swept up in partisanship, he would join us in calling 
for an FBI background investigation, which can be performed quietly, 
soberly, quickly, and effectively, without fuss, without muss, and 
without any circus atmosphere. That is the way to get this done. The 
only reason it hasn't happened is that both the President and Leader 
McConnell have blocked it, as well as Senator Grassley. Don't they want 
the truth? They say they do, but their actions belie that because they 
will not even entertain a background check, which the FBI does over and 
over, to find out the facts. I think they are afraid of the facts.

  Why doesn't Judge Kavanaugh call for an FBI investigation? He went on 
TV last night and said they are not true. If they are not true, he has 
nothing to fear from an FBI background investigation, and he should 
want it, no

[[Page S6287]]

matter what Leader McConnell and President Trump say. Why doesn't he 
call for it? Is he afraid of the facts?
  So I challenge you, Leader McConnell. If you are so convinced this is 
a smear campaign, you will have no problem with an FBI investigation to 
prove your case. Come to the floor. Come now. Join me in asking the 
White House to reopen the background check. Let's get the politics out 
of it. Let's root out the facts. Let's get to the truth--no 
histrionics, no smearing, no name-calling--as they said in Dragnet, 
just the facts.
  Labeling this a partisan smear job demeans not only the Senators in 
my caucus, who I know are doing everything they can to treat these 
allegations with caution and respect for both Dr. Ford and Judge 
Kavanaugh, but it demeans many, many women who have come forward of 
their own volition, knowingly inviting abuse, to share their stories. 
They share them not because they simply want their stories to be told. 
They want to prevent it from happening again and again and again in the 
future. They want to protect their daughters and their granddaughters 
from this kind of stuff, which, as we have seen in the last year or 
two, has been all too real, all too frequent. They are doing a noble 
thing. Then, to slander them by calling what Dr. Ford said a smear job 
is outrageous, demeaning, wrong. Again, Leader McConnell should rethink 
what he said in the heat of the moment and apologize to Dr. Ford.
  So what is really going on here? Why are Republicans falsely claiming 
that credible allegations are being made for political reasons? Because 
their nominee to the Supreme Court, frankly, has a gigantic credibility 
problem.
  In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh 
misled the committee on numerous occasions regarding his involvement in 
some of the ugliest controversies of the Bush administration, including 
the Bush administration's policies on torture, the confirmation of some 
deeply flawed judges, like William Pryor and Charles Pickering, and his 
knowledge of the odious theft of Democratic email records by a 
Republican staff member named Manny Miranda. In all of those, Judge 
Kavanaugh did not come clean. He did not tell the truth and nothing but 
the truth, but far, far from it.
  Judge Kavanaugh was in the thick of all of those things as a top 
political operative in the Bush White House and yet denied any 
involvement. Here again, with these new allegations brought forward by 
Dr. Ford and others, Judge Kavanaugh is again issuing blanket denials, 
but the question looms: Is he credible? Is he credible?
  He is opposed to having the FBI investigate, as is the majority 
leader and as is President Trump. None of them want the facts to come 
out. They just want to ``plow right through it.'' If not for the 
courage of a handful of Republican Senators, we wouldn't have even had 
the hearing. Leader McConnell and Senator Grassley did not want 
hearings--even hearings, which they are now saying are fair and right. 
But a few Republican Senators, to their credit, said: We have to have 
hearings. At least let's hear this woman out.
  I didn't hear them calling this a smear job, thank God. They said: 
Let's get the facts.
  Again, to repeat, the best way to get the facts is not to just plow 
through it. It is to have the FBI do what they have always done when 
new information comes up involving a nominee they may have already 
checked out: Reopen the background check and check out these new facts. 
It will not take long. It will be done quietly and in private, and then 
the Judiciary Committee members, on both sides of the aisle, can learn 
the same facts, done by an objective observer. That is all the American 
people want.
  The American people see what is going on. They are looking at Judge 
Kavanaugh, and they are finding him less and less credible. That is why 
his nomination is in deep trouble. Perhaps that is why, in poll after 
poll, the plurality of Americans say Judge Kavanaugh should not be 
confirmed.
  Let us get the facts. Let us stop smearing women who have the courage 
to come forward. Let's get to the bottom of this in a correct, 
appropriate, and dignified way. That is what the American people want, 
and that is what we should be doing in a bipartisan way in this 
Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk for 
a few minutes about the unfortunate circumstances we find ourselves in 
as a result of the failure of the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee to submit a letter that she received from--in this case, we 
now know--Dr. Ford to the background investigators, who are bipartisan, 
who would have investigated this matter during the normal course of the 
confirmation process in a way that protected the anonymity and 
confidentiality of Dr. Ford, as well as the nominee.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, having been a longtime member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, frequently during the course of a 
background investigation, we will learn things that Senators will want 
to ask the nominee about, but some of them are so sensitive and, 
frankly, some of them involve allegations we just don't know whether 
there is any basis to them or not. So they are handled in a 
particularly careful manner by the background investigators, and they 
are not generally made available to Members of the Judiciary Committee 
staff because they are so sensitive and potentially embarrassing. 
Frankly, we just have to get to the bottom of them, but we want to do 
so in a way that is respectful of both the person making the accusation 
as well as the nominee.
  Unfortunately, none of that happened here because we now know that 
the ranking member, our friend Senator Feinstein, sat on this letter 
for some 6 weeks. Then, after the hearing, after all the thousand-plus 
questions for the record, after being able to examine not only the 
nominee for 2 days--over a long period of time--having gone through an 
FBI background investigation, as well as a bipartisan background 
investigation by the Judiciary Committee staff, this letter comes out 
in a way that, frankly, puts Dr. Ford in an uncomfortable position but 
also has consequences in terms of the nominee.
  Many of us saw last night Judge Kavanaugh talk about the impact of 
this accusation that he denies ever occurring, its impact on his 
children, on his marriage, and on his reputation. This is not something 
any of us should welcome or take lightly, especially when there is an 
alternative, which would have protected Dr. Ford and the nominee and 
allowed us to get to the bottom of this accusation before it would ever 
have the potential of becoming public.
  I just don't buy this idea either that if you are a man, you are on 
one side of this argument when it comes to accusations of sexual 
misconduct, or if you are a woman, you are on the other side. All of us 
have mothers. We all have fathers. Many of us have brothers and 
sisters. Many of us are fortunate enough to have daughters, as I do. I 
want to make sure my daughters, my wife, and my sister are treated with 
the dignity and respect that they are entitled to were they to be so 
unfortunate as to be caught up in a situation where they were a victim 
of sexual misconduct by a man. Conversely, this idea that just because 
you are a man, you are presumed to be guilty because somebody makes an 
accusation without presenting any evidence to support that accusation 
strikes me as being uniquely antithetical to our constitutional system 
and our sense of what is fair play. I will talk about that more in just 
a second.
  I am very proud to support the nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, for the U.S. 
Supreme Court. I have had the fortune to know him since about 2000. He 
is an exceptional nominee by all respects. I, along with the majority 
leader and others, think it is a disservice to him, as well as to our 
courts, as well as to the Senate and the confirmation process for us to 
sit idly by and allow our colleagues across the aisle to blow up the 
normal process and to denigrate the reputation he has spent a career to 
build--especially, without solid evidence.

[[Page S6288]]

  Again, we all feel sympathy--we should--for people who claim sexual 
assault. We owe them an opportunity for a fair chance to tell their 
story and to produce evidence, and we have recourse in our courts of 
law and elsewhere when those sorts of serious accusations are made.
  But we also need to consider both sides of the equation. We need to 
consider the impact on the nominee--somebody who served more than 12 
years as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and, before that, 
worked for the President of the United States in the White House 
Counsel's Office. His public service required him to go through not one 
FBI background check but six FBI background checks, and he passed all 
of them with flying colors. Never before in any of those six background 
checks has this accusation been lodged. Not once in his long career has 
there been any allegation of improper conduct on the part of Judge 
Kavanaugh toward women--not once--other than this allegation.

  As I said, as we think about what a fair process is--and Judge 
Kavanaugh talked about that last night--we need a fair process. We need 
not to assume somebody is guilty because an allegation has been made.
  Frankly, in the criminal law context, we wouldn't want to give the 
government that much power to be able to deny us of our liberty, our 
property, or even our life by just an accusation, without requiring 
credible evidence to be presented in order to prove it before an 
impartial jury or judge. This is a constitutional principle--a bedrock 
constitutional principle--of our form of government.
  It is very disturbing, and it is dangerous to hear some of our 
colleagues try to turn that principle on its head and say it is up to 
Judge Kavanaugh to disprove the allegations. He said it never happened. 
How could he possibly disprove the allegation when he said it never 
happened?
  Well, that just shows the extent to which I think we have gotten off 
track in this confirmation process. We have already heard an awful lot 
about the judge. By all accounts, he is well qualified, according to 
friends, mentors, law clerks, attorneys, and professors. Everybody who 
testified about his nomination considered him to be a man of integrity, 
and I believe that personally to be the fact.
  So it ought to trouble all of us--notwithstanding this orderly, 
respectful process by which the Judiciary Committee conducts background 
investigations, including accusations like the one being made by Dr. 
Ford--when that emerges at the eleventh hour. It makes no sense in 
terms of what we know about the nominee. It doesn't fit the picture. 
When something is alleged that is so completely out of character for 
what we do know about the nominee, it ought to strain our credulity. I, 
unlike some of our colleagues across the aisle, do not believe we 
should rush to judgment and simply assume the worse.
  Of course, the other attribute of a fair process would be an 
impartial judge or somebody who hasn't already made up their mind. We 
know that is not the case among our Democratic colleagues. The minority 
leader said he would do everything in his power to stop the nominee 
long before this accusation came up, and I believe none of the 
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would have supported the nominee 
even before they knew about this allegation.
  That is not a fair process. They are not a neutral observer or an 
impartial arbiter of the facts. They are more than happy to embrace 
thinly sourced allegations--even character assassinations--based on 
shreds of evidence, if you can dignify it by calling it that.
  But that is not an approach that I think we should support. It is 
certainly not an approach I can support. I don't think it is a process 
anybody in the Senate or any American should support. It is 
shortsighted. It is narrowly focused and wrong.
  I once told a friend that when the facts no longer make a difference 
in an argument, I am going to look for a new line of work. But the 
facts do matter, and these are the facts. Right now, we have one 
primary allegation regarding Judge Kavanaugh, and then another one that 
just popped up in the last day or so that I will talk about in a 
moment. Americans are all too familiar now with the misconduct that one 
person claims occurred more than 35 years ago. It is really hard to 
reconstruct things that happened 35 years ago. I think we all know that 
from our common experience.
  I wonder if anybody within the sound of my voice could answer me: 
What were you doing 35 years ago on a given day in a given month at a 
given time? Could you reconstruct, in your own memory, what you were 
doing at that time and on that date and where you were and who you were 
with?
  We also have to bear in mind that Judge Kavanaugh has said that this 
alleged incident, simply, did not happen. He said so under penalty of 
felony. In other words, if you lie to the FBI or if you lie to Congress 
during the course of a background investigation or in testimony to 
Congress, that is subject to a criminal penalty. Now, because Dr. Ford 
didn't go through the normal background investigation, she has not had 
to give evidence to the committee or to the Congress under that same 
penalty of perjury. Judge Kavanaugh has, but she hasn't. Yet she will 
have that chance this Thursday.
  I firmly believe that a fair process means that both the accuser and 
the accused should be required to provide information to the Congress--
to the Senate and to the Judiciary Committee--under the same 
conditions. In other words, if one witness testifies under oath, then 
both witnesses should testify under oath. If one witness is subject to 
a penalty of perjury for lying, then both witnesses should be subject 
to a penalty in the event of perjury for lying. That is another 
attribute of the fair process that Judge Kavanaugh talked about last 
night.
  We can't ignore the fact that, so far, no one else has corroborated 
Dr. Ford's statements and that she herself concedes she told no one 
about this alleged incident, not even a friend or a family member, 
until 2012 and, only then, without mentioning Brett Kavanaugh's name. 
The Judiciary Committee's investigators, as you would want and expect, 
have already been in touch with the four other people who Dr. Ford 
claimed were involved in this incident, and all four have denied having 
any knowledge of this event. That is a fact. You can't ignore it. You 
shouldn't ignore it. That is something we ought to consider as part of 
a fair process.
  Nevertheless, we have really done everything we possibly can. We have 
acceded to every reasonable demand that has been made by Dr. Ford and 
her lawyers to give her the opportunity to be heard. We welcome her 
testimony, and we will listen to her at the hearing that has been 
scheduled for this Thursday. We welcome her participation, but we 
insist on a fair process--a fair process to her and a fair process to 
the nominee--one that allows her and Judge Kavanaugh to testify: to 
explain, to justify, and to corroborate if they can. Again, one of the 
hallmarks of a fair process is the presumption of innocence. This 
presumption of guilt, based on an unproven accusation, is un-American. 
It is absolutely foreign to who we are as a country and the sort of 
process demanded under our Constitution for people who are accused of 
serious misconduct.
  So far, this process has been patently unfair both to Dr. Ford and to 
Judge Kavanaugh because the ranking member sat on this letter for 6 
weeks and didn't submit it through the regular background investigation 
process that would have protected Dr. Ford and her confidentiality 
while it was being pursued. Now, as a result of the way this was 
handled by the ranking member, her letter, which she requested to 
remain confidential, and her complaint, which she requested to remain 
anonymous, was leaked to the press, and a media firestorm ensued. I am 
confident this is not what Dr. Ford wanted when she sent that letter to 
our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
  It is important that Dr. Ford be given the chance to talk about what 
she believes happened to her. We are in the middle of an important 
national conversation about sexual assault and how certain people in 
positions of power wield their influence to coerce and intimidate women 
in the workplace and at large. This is a long overdue conversation, but 
we can't let the pendulum swing so far as to deny the accused his or 
her basic rights.
  The Judiciary Committee, as I said, is no stranger to these sorts of 
allegations as one of our own Members

[[Page S6289]]

stepped down during this Congress after he acknowledged his own 
misconduct. Yet, if, as Judge Kavanaugh says, the conduct in question 
never occurred, he shouldn't be used as some sort of sacrificial lamb 
on behalf of larger causes and concerns to which he is in no way 
attached or implicated. That would be unjust. That would be the 
opposite of fair. It would also establish a terrible precedent for 
nominees in moving forward. We can't and we shouldn't let that happen.
  I believe Chairman Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
has done an extraordinary job under very difficult circumstances. He 
has been extraordinarily gracious in trying to accommodate Dr. Ford. 
That is what we all have wanted even after her legal team has ignored 
offers and deadlines over the course of the last week.
  I have to be honest, though. Some of the tactics that have been waged 
so far make me wonder whether Dr. Ford is still in control of her own 
story and her own circumstances. It makes me wonder whether she is 
being exploited by a political cause and whether her handlers and some 
of her supporters truly have her interests at heart. I wonder this 
particularly given that, after insisting this sensitive matter be 
treated confidentially, the letter--in the possession of our colleagues 
on the Democratic side on the Judiciary Committee--was leaked to the 
media, and Dr. Ford was forced to go forward publicly. Remember that 
the reason our friend, the ranking member from California, said she 
withheld this allegation until the very last minute was to protect Dr. 
Ford and to respect her request for anonymity. Yet that was then 
trampled on, ignored, and her wishes betrayed when this letter was 
leaked to the press.
  Again, this is a particularly troubling matter, but one of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee 
has gone so far as to suggest that Judge Kavanaugh doesn't deserve the 
presumption of innocence, that just because a 35-year-old allegation 
was made, we must presume he is guilty. She said she believes that not 
because of anything to do with his reputation for honesty or 
truthfulness or anything about the facts; she said it is because of the 
way he conducts his judging, the way he approaches cases.
  This is an extraordinarily disturbing statement, and I think it 
should be to all of us--this idea that he is denied what is a 
constitutional right, when an accusation is made of a crime, because of 
the way he performs his job as a judge, deciding cases. That ought to 
disturb all of us. I hope our colleagues will approach Thursday's 
hearing with more open minds than, apparently, she will.
  As I mentioned a moment ago, it is true that now there is a second 
allegation that has been reported against Judge Kavanaugh. It stems 
from the New Yorker article that was published a couple of days ago, 
but, obviously, it does not hold up to scrutiny. You don't have to take 
my word for it. Just ask the New York Times. The New York Times looked 
into it and conducted dozens of interviews. It tried to find anybody 
who would corroborate this allegation, and it wouldn't touch it because 
it couldn't get anybody else to say: Yes, that is what happened.
  One journalist said on the air that Democrats sought out this second 
woman and essentially convinced her to make an accusation against Judge 
Kavanaugh. According to the story, no one the accuser knows has 
corroborated her claim. That is why the New York Times wouldn't report 
it. They interviewed several dozen people. They looked really hard. You 
can imagine how hard those reporters looked to find somebody--anybody--
who would corroborate this allegation, but they couldn't find anybody. 
What they found was that the accuser herself reportedly told others 
that she was not sure if the perpetrator was actually Judge Kavanaugh. 
She told others with whom she was talking about possibly corroborating 
her accusation that she was not sure it was Judge Kavanaugh.
  Now this information has been distributed to the press and around the 
country in a way that really is extraordinarily shameful. I don't say 
this often, but good for the New York Times. Thanks for upholding a 
modicum of journalistic integrity by not reporting this uncorroborated 
allegation in which the person who was making the accusation said: I 
may have the wrong guy. Shame on the New Yorker and others who have 
published this junk journalism.
  As he said, Judge Kavanaugh is not going away. Despite the 
allegations made against him, which he says are false and did not 
happen, despite the smear campaign on his reputation as a person of 
integrity, despite the threats made against him and his family, he said 
he will not be intimidated into withdrawing, and he vowed to defend 
both his integrity and his good name before the Judiciary Committee 
this week.
  As the delay tactics continue to play out and as the news stories 
continue to pile up, let's not lose sight as to why Judge Kavanaugh was 
nominated in the first place--his qualifications and the respect that 
he enjoys from all of those who have interacted with him professionally 
and personally. His work has been praised by legal practitioners and 
scholars alike. He has been unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court 
on numerous occasions. During his grueling week-long confirmation 
hearing, he showed the kind of poise and seriousness befitting of the 
high office to which he has been nominated. He fielded many, many 
questions from Republicans and Democrats, and he responded to all of 
them truthfully, articulately, and graciously.
  While it is easy to be distracted by the latest irresponsible, 
unsubstantiated allegation, we need to put that in a larger context. 
Surely, these allegations cannot be viewed in isolation nor can the 
fact that our colleagues across the aisle previously questioned Amy 
Coney Barrett for her Catholic faith. Judge Kavanaugh is a practicing 
Catholic as well. Amy Coney Barrett, who had been nominated for the 
Seventh Circuit, was actually told in the questioning of her Catholic 
faith that the dogma lived loudly within her, which suggested somehow 
that because she is a practicing Catholic, she could not be confirmed 
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  We don't have religious tests in this country. No matter what your 
faith or background or absence of faith in a higher being, we should 
not be attacking nominees for their religions or their faiths or their 
lack of faith. We should be confirming good nominees who can apply the 
law and the Constitution as written. Yet I think it is important to put 
the Amy Coney Barrett questioning and statement in this context, given 
the background and faith of this nominee.

  We will try our best to get to the truth this week. We will listen 
carefully, but we will remember all of the evidence, and then we will 
vote on whether to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Our Democratic colleagues have dragged this out long enough. There 
will be no more delays, and soon it will be the time to vote. I say to 
my friends, we will hear from Dr. Ford. We have done our best to 
accommodate her and to give her a safe place where she can tell her 
story under oath to members of the Judiciary Committee who will be 
voting on this nomination. Likewise, Judge Kavanaugh will be placed 
under oath and give his testimony. Both of them will be subject to the 
penalties for perjury, which is a routine requirement for everyone 
giving testimony. We have to remember this has to be a fair process, 
both to the accused and the accuser.
  Some of the rhetoric, some of the statements I have heard about the 
process have been anything other than fair to either one of them, 
thanks to the fact that this letter was not disclosed earlier but then 
dropped into the public view, notwithstanding the reluctance of Dr. 
Ford to have her identity revealed.
  So we are where we are. We have a job to do. Under the Constitution, 
it is the Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent on 
nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we are going to do that. We 
are going to do that after hearing from Dr. Ford and after hearing from 
Judge Kavanaugh, just as we have heard for days from Judge Kavanaugh 
and other nominees following an extensive FBI background investigation 
and investigation by the bipartisan professional staff on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. We are going to know everything that can be known 
about the nominee and about this alleged incident that Judge

[[Page S6290]]

Kavanaugh said never occurred 35-plus years ago.
  I can't tell you where I was on any given day of the week 35 years 
ago at a certain time of day. That is why our job is so difficult, but 
we are going to do our very best, in fairness to Dr. Ford and Judge 
Kavanaugh, to try to bring this matter to a fair conclusion.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee).
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.