Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the American people have walked through Supreme Court nominations many times. There is a normal process of walking through Supreme Court nominations.
They are nominated by the President. There are background checks that are done. It is extensive. They then meet with every single Senator or whoever wants to meet with them privately. They turn in documents so that everyone can read through their backgrounds and their writings. They get details, and they get interviews. Anything they have ever written, whether it was writing for their law school journals or writing articles for a sports magazine, is turned in. Everyone goes back through that.
Once they go through all 100 Senators or whoever wants to meet with them, the Judiciary Committee meets with them. They do a week of hearings. They do extensive work and talk through everything. Outside witnesses will come in and will talk about their lives.
There is a confidential meeting that happens with all the Senators in which they sit down and say there were some private accusations that might have been made or some issues about your finances or things that we saw in your background report that we want to ask you about confidentially.
After all of that is done, there is time for questions for the record, and anyone who still has questions can submit them to the nominee. Then it is time for a vote.
That is how it is typically done. Quite frankly, that doesn't look like how it was being done this time with Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
He was nominated by the President. He turned over documents. Boy, did he turn over documents. There was an enormous number of documents turned over by him that were requested and continue to be requested. Brett Kavanaugh ended up having 480,000 pages of documents turned over to the committee. It was more than the past five Supreme Court nominees combined turned over.
There were 57 days from the time he was nominated until the time the first hearing actually began with the Judiciary Committee. That is a longer period of time than it was for Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kagan, or Justice Sotomayor. It was a long period of time between when he was nominated and when he actually came, and there were more documents that were turned over than for any other person. He went through the hearings for 5 days. He went through all of the confidential meetings and those private meetings. He went through every private meeting with every Senator who wanted to meet privately.
Then it was time for questions for the record. There were 1,300 questions for the record that were given to him as followup for the hearing. Those are more questions for the record than for all of the Supreme Court Justices combined in the history of the country.
After all of that was done, a bombshell was dropped. You see, a month and a half before the end of the hearing, a lady named Dr. Ford had sent a letter to one of the other Senators here, to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, saying: I have a concern from a memory that I have from high school time. That letter was turned over on July 30, early in the process, while Judge Kavanaugh was still meeting individually with Senators--before the hearings, before the classified meetings, before any of the questions for the record, before any of that. It was turned over early.
Apparently, the ranking member's staff reached out to her then and had a phone call, and the ranking member had a phone call. Then that information was held. Apparently, from her own testimony--from Dr. Ford--she was then advised by the ranking member's staff: You need to hire an attorney and prepare yourself. Then nothing was said for a month. Suddenly, 2 days before the hearing, a leak comes out of the Judiciary Committee--from somewhere--and there was a story in the newspaper about this accuser. Then everything began to break loose.
What is interesting is that accusations like these are made for a lot of different nominees of all different types and have been for years and years and years. So there is a process by which to handle this. When an accusation is made like that, you give it to the FBI early. It includes it in its background check so as to walk through it early. You sit down in confidential meetings so that accusers don't have to go through all of the public scrutiny. You resolve it in a private setting and bring as many witnesses as you want to talk through it, but you don't want accusers to have to be public, because they don't like to be public. This is something very private and personal to them.
Yet that is not what happened with Dr. Ford. It was saved. She was just told: Get an attorney. You are going to need it. Then her story was plopped out into the news, forcing her out, making her sit in front of the American people and dragging the American people through an exceptionally painful season in our country's history.
At the end of that, there was a hearing. Many Americans watched. It was riveting to try to figure out who was credible. How do I follow the story? All of this testimony came out from Brett Kavanaugh who adamantly--forcefully--denied anything like this had ever been done with Dr. Ford or any other person. It was unequivocal. Dr. Ford said: I 100 percent remember this, and here are the three people who will also corroborate my story. They were there.
There was a push from my Democratic colleagues to say that this investigation had been done by the committee, and they want the investigation done by the FBI, with the unequivocal statement that during the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, the FBI took 3 days to do all of the investigation. We want 3 days. Give the FBI 3 days to do this. Then they came back later: Give them a week. That is all it would take. So a decision was made to pause and give the FBI time to do it.
Here were the instructions to the FBI: Research any credible accusation--no boundaries, no limitations on them. Research a credible current accusation. It was not just ``keep adding forever.'' If there were new accusations that were to come in, there would have to be a new conversation. By that time, they had started rolling in. So the FBI was told to just go look at them all, and they were given instructions. No one from the House or the Senate, of either party, was tracking them. They just let the FBI do their task.
They have now come back several days later with the report that a lot of American people now know is stored downstairs, and every Senator has the opportunity to go through it.
There are pages and pages of testimony. They went through all of the individuals who were claiming to have any kind of alleged firsthand knowledge, all of the individuals Dr. Ford had stated. Those three individuals were there to say they could testify on his behalf.
Then there was the list from Brett Kavanaugh's calendar, saying: Here are all of the individuals who went to these parties. The FBI went through and interviewed them all.
The FBI also went to Ms. Ramirez, saying: We will take a look at this, even though the New York Times wouldn't take that story when it was offered to them. The New York Times spent a week researching it, calling around, as they said, to dozens of people to find anyone who could corroborate Ms. Ramirez's story, and they couldn't find anyone. So the New York Times walked away from it, but a different periodical printed it anyway.
The FBI went to Ms. Ramirez, interviewed her and interviewed anyone she said could corroborate her story. At the end of that investigation, all of those reports came in. We have now read through them, and every single one of those individuals reported back: I don't remember anything like what they are describing. Not only do I not remember anything like what they are describing, I know Brett Kavanaugh, and I can't even imagine that he would do something like that.
Instead of agreeing with their story, with the accusation, person after person after person actually agreed with Brett Kavanaugh.
What is interesting is Brett Kavanaugh has been through six different FBI background checks in the past. He has now had 150 people in his life who have been interviewed. Interestingly enough, of all 150 people in his life who have been interviewed--even before this time, one of the questions the FBI asks everyone when they are doing a background check is this: Do you know of any issues this person has with alcohol or drug use that would be a problem for them? Do they have a problem with drug or alcohol use? Every single one of those people, from two decades of background checks, six different times in his life--all of them reported: No, he does not have a problem with drugs or alcohol.
Over the last couple of weeks, there has been an aggressive move to transform a person into a monster. In fact, some of my colleagues on this floor have labeled him as evil, and anyone who supports him is evil. It is the transformation of a person's reputation for political gain.
The other accusations I have seen in the media have been fascinating to me. For the past several weeks, the media has been reporting there is another accuser. The big story will come out that there is another accuser, but the next day they don't ever seem to print when that accuser recanted, as many of them have.
A story breaks out one day saying, ``Here is the story I remember,'' and they tell this whole sexually explicit story. The committee then contacts the individual of the story and says, ``Under penalty of perjury, would you be willing to testify in front of us and tell us your story?'' Instead of saying, ``Yes, I would agree to tell my story,'' the response that came back to them was, ``I made a crazy mistake. I apologize. I will recant my story rather than face perjury and testify.''
There was an accusation that came from an anonymous person in Colorado, who said, ``I know I saw Brett Kavanaugh in this year, at this time, slam his girlfriend against the wall in this public place,'' except the problem was the girlfriend that he had at the time came out publicly and said that never ever happened, and she can't imagine Brett Kavanaugh doing that.
My favorite one is the accusation that was printed in which another accuser, who ended up being a person who had written in a tip, said: There was a really salacious frat party at Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity after he left Yale. It was a really big party, and it was really out of control. I bet Brett Kavanaugh came back to that party after he was out of college. I bet he came back and went to that party and someone should check. That was the big tip.
This has really gotten out of control. This started with a serious accusation from an accuser whom we should take seriously--Dr. Ford. We should have been able to get to the facts and the information, but it suddenly spun out of control into random smear campaigns to try to destroy someone personally.
The information that has come out has not corroborated any of the accusations. In fact, it has done the opposite. This has done tremendous damage to a family and to the reputation of someone who has served our country admirably for a long time and who, up until the last 2 weeks, had a stellar reputation, which has now been trashed for political gain.
I grieve for the people who have experienced sexual assault in their lives. I have spent 22 years working with students in youth ministry, and I have met lots of families who have had lots of pain in their lives. How we deal with sexual assault in America is very important. People need to be believed, and things need to be taken seriously, but when the facts all come out, we also have to make decisions based on facts, not on accusations. This is a case where we have to be able to deal with the facts.
I will vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court based on his record for decades, based on now seven FBI backgrounds checks on him, based on 65 ladies who have come forward, who knew him from high school and college and have said: This is the Brett Kavanaugh we knew, and he isn't anything like all of these accusations.
Based on 150 different people whom the FBI privately interviewed and asked about his alcohol use over the past 20 years--even reaching back to college, for instance--asking if he was ever out of control in his alcohol use, all of them say no. All of them say no. It is not based on a couple of recent accusations; it is over decades of history.
I get that there are people who will disagree on this for political reasons or they may not like Brett Kavanaugh's positions on legal issues. I get that, but let's not smear a man's reputation forever because we don't like his opinions on something.
Where do I think we go from here? I think there is something we can gain as a nation from this painful experience. If there is any one piece of advice that I could pass on to the country as a whole and to us as leaders, it is to encourage families to take care of their kids.
As I read all of these stories--and I have gone through all of them-- all of them show some markers that I look at and say there is some need for conversation. I think moms and dads should sit down with their daughters and should lovingly say to them: If there is ever anything that happens to you, if any boy ever does something inappropriate to you, if he ever touches you in any way, we want you to know that we love you, we believe in you, and you can come to tell us right away because we want to make it right as soon as possible. Do not be afraid to talk to us about it. We will not blame you. We want to make it right. That conversation that moms and dads can have with their daughters could have great benefit for a lot of daughters for a long time.
There is a conversation that moms and dads need to have with their sons and daughters about alcohol use because in all of the stories that I have read, all of them involve teenage drinking--all of them.
Dr. Ford admitted drinking even at the party she described. All of them involved drinking and drug use. There is a conversation that moms and dads could have with their kids because, quite frankly, I have met way too many parents who have said: I know my children are going to drink. I just tell them not to drink and drive. If they are going to drink, I tell them just to stay over there or come to our house and drink, and that will be fine. Well, it is not fine.
There are an awful lot of 15- and 16-year-olds who do not have the maturity to drink alcohol, and when parents sign off on it and say that it is OK, they need to understand there are very real consequences.
I have not asked Judge Kavanaugh about it, but I bet he would love to take back some of his drinking when he was in high school and college, to wait until he was more mature, because he was telling painful stories.
I would encourage parents to be parents and to step up and help protect their kids so that they can make better decisions. It may be a good lesson for us as a nation to be able to pass on to our kids.
One last lesson: We have to learn how to disagree about political issues without destroying someone personally for the sake of gain on anything in politics. We have to learn this lesson because in the days ahead, no matter what your political party is, no matter who is President, no matter who is nominated, we want the best and brightest of our country to step up. We want them all to be able to serve their country.
I have not met a perfect person. What has been interesting to me is the number of times that I have had Democratic colleagues say to me in the last week and a half, ``You know, I really hope they don't go through my high school record like we are going through Judge Kavanaugh's record'' or the number of times I have heard folks say, ``Do you know what I really want said at the committee hearing? I want someone to step up and say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, but that hasn't been said.''
Maybe an ounce of compassion and a tremendous amount of affection for those who have suffered greatly from assault would be of great benefit to us as a nation, as a community, and as a Senate.
I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source