[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 165 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6507-S6509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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

[[Page S6508]]

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

[[Page S6509]]

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.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.