Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, on September 16, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly came forward to share that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. This was a remarkably courageous act. It was one that she hesitated to do. It was something that she struggled with, but she said time and again that she believed it was her civic duty and her sense of citizenship--that act of grace, that feeling that you have a commitment to country, to causes larger than yourself. She put herself forward. She said she was terrified to do so. She said she feared for what the impact would be on her family.

Indeed, the impact on her family was terrifying. She endured hatred and vile poured out to her--death threats. She had to leave her family home and split her family up at times. She had to engage security for her own protection.

When Dr. Ford came before the Judiciary Committee to testify, she reiterated that she was afraid. She reiterated how terrified she was, but she stated again and again this ideal of patriotic duty and civic responsibility because she believed that there is something about our institutions that is sacred and that for the highest Court in the land, there could be millions of qualified people in America, thousands of folks. Indeed, the President's list itself has dozens of folks. She said that this person who sexually assaulted her should not go on the highest Court in the land for a lifetime appointment.

So she sat before us in the face of endless harassment, with glaring public scrutiny into all aspects of her life and the threats against her family. Dr. Ford gave testimony that was powerful and that, to many, was jarring. She talked about her private truth, her experience, and how it affected her life.

She said again and again that she wanted to be helpful to the committee. She treated every member of the committee on the Republican side and the Democratic side with respect. She extended them grace. She was cross-examined by a prosecutor for the Republicans. She engaged with that prosecutor with a sense of decency and honor. She didn't stretch the truth or try to dodge questions. She spoke honestly and candidly and from her heart. She shared details that she said had been seared into her memory.

She talked about the narrow set of stairs in that house that she climbed to use the restroom. She talked about being pushed from behind into a bedroom. She talked about the music being turned up louder as she struggled. She talked about Brett Kavanaugh on top of her, hand over her mouth, trying to stop her as she yelled for help. She said she thought she was going to be raped. She said she thought she might be accidentally killed.

There was Mark Judge, a person she identified, watching, refusing to help her. Both Mark and Brett were laughing. Dr. Ford described that laughter as searing into her memory. She talked about it as being indelible. She told us she would never forget, and that she would ``never forget the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.''

I believe her. I believe Dr. Ford. I still believe her, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle spoke up, calling Dr. Ford's testimony credible. Many have said they believe her or, at least, that they believe someone assaulted her. They gave credence to the power of that experience--an experience that reflects that of many people who experience trauma. You don't remember it like a video recording, but there are moments that are seared into your mind. Her experience was consistent with people who have experienced trauma. Even though the Senate hearing would not allow experts to come in, we all know enough now to know that the way she described her experiences and the things she remembered all spoke to the ability of a courageous American doing their civic duty.

I was surprised that even the President of the United States called her sincere and called her testimony compelling. That was until he stood at a rally and mocked her. The President of the United States, the most powerful person in the country--perhaps the most powerful person in the world--mocked her and got uproarious laughter. The same thing that was seared in her memory: People were laughing at her. The President ignited that in a crowd and made her again the focus of laughter and mocking.

To this body that I revere, this body that I love; to my colleagues, whom I respect, on both sides of the aisle; to this body that was designed to be the world's most deliberative body; to this body that was designed to be thoughtful, to take the time to analyze, the question is this: We heard words about her testimony, but what followed those words? Were they like dust in the wind or were they substantive words that cause us to believe her, admiring and honoring her courage for coming forward? Did we treat her that way?

Well, if they did believe her, if they did honor her words and her courage and the risk she took, then this body and the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a part, would have insisted on a full, fair, thorough, and complete FBI investigation that included the many witnesses who stepped forward who could have corroborated her testimony and could have contradicted Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. This body would have insisted that we take the time to do a thorough investigation because it is not just about Dr. Ford. There are millions of survivors, women and men, watching how this body will deal with the seriousness of sexual assault.

Will we listen to survivors? Will we honor them enough to fully investigate their charges? These are not just charges alone. These are charges against someone who is up for one of the most important positions in our Nation--a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

No, they did not honor them. If they had honored them, they would have insisted on a full FBI investigation. Indeed, when another survivor, Ms. Ramirez, came forward, talking about her incident with Judge Kavanaugh during college days--when Judge Kavanaugh diminished his drinking, evasively talked about his drinking--classmate after classmate, after his testimony, came forward and said he was lying and he was misleading. Republican and Democratic classmates were offended by the way he talked about his behavior. It was in those college days that Ms. Ramirez said Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. She identified 20 witnesses that were either eyewitnesses or could have corroborated the evidence.

She talked in detail about who could have substantiated her claims about the kind of drunkenness that we heard in public statements from his friends, which seemed consistent and seemed to implicate the truthfulness of someone who was going to the highest Court. Did we honor that woman? Did we honor that survivor by doing an investigation, by going to and at least talking to the 20 witnesses that she put forward--another woman who is being mocked, another woman who is a victim of hate being spewed at her, belittling her? Did we honor a survivor and simply listen and interview the 20 people she said could have proved the factual nature of her allegation?

No, we didn't. We didn't honor a survivor. We didn't listen to a survivor. We didn't take the time in the world's most deliberative body to listen to a woman's claims and take the steps to see if they were true or not.

This is what to me is so deeply offensive. It is that you have two women who come forward making claims that even the President said, at first, seemed sincere and compelling, but we didn't take the next step to fully investigate their claims so that we could know what the facts are.

The truth is something that the American public deserves. An investigation that gets to the truth is something that the American public deserves, that Dr. Ford deserves, that Ms. Ramirez deserves, and that even Brett Kavanaugh deserves--to let the truth come out. But this FBI investigation was part of a larger sham.

People on the right, colleagues of mine, accused Dr. Ford, with her sincere testimony--they accused her of being part of a coordinated, partisan smear campaign. Think about that. She told her husband in 2012 about the attack. Was she somehow coordinating with Democrats back in 2012 before Judge Kavanaugh was anywhere near being on the Supreme Court? No.

She talked about it with her therapist. She talked about it with her husband. She said it was Brett Kavanaugh years before Brett Kavanaugh was even on a list of consideration by the President.

In 2013, she discussed the assault again in an individual therapy session. In that same year, she told a close friend that she had been assaulted as a teenager while she was trapped in the room with two drunken boys. That was not a coordinated, partisan attack back in 2013.

In 2016, she told another friend she had been sexually assaulted in high school by someone who went on to become a Federal judge. In 2017, she told yet another friend about the assault. She told each of these three friends that a person who had assaulted her had become a Federal judge. This does not sound like some kind of partisan smear tactics; this sounds like a woman who has been telling the truth for years about Brett Kavanaugh.

The least this body could do is pause for a moment and not do a sham FBI investigation where they talk to just a handful of people but do a full FBI investigation, because these charges are serious.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans--survivors themselves and others-- are watching to see how we deal with something that the Centers for Disease Control says happens to one out of every three women in America. How do we deal with those charges? It happens to one out of every six men in America. How do we deal with those charges? When a survivor comes forward, how does the world's most deliberative body honor that?

What we are seeing here is a coordinated, partisan effort to put blinders on, to not seek the truth, and to rush this to tomorrow to a final vote.

Long before Dr. Ford's bravery, I was one of those Democrats, one of those Senators, one of those Americans who expressed their sincere and deeply held concerns about Judge Kavanaugh's record. I said early that I would not support him. I opposed his nomination. Then, I opposed his nomination because I was deeply concerned that we have a President of the United States who is the subject of a criminal investigation, and that President picked the one person from his Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society list who had a view of Presidential power that I believed would give that President immunity should issues relating to that investigation come before the Supreme Court.

I am deeply troubled about his views on women's right to make their own medical decisions. I am troubled about his views on workers' rights to organize, on voting rights, on civil rights, and on the principle of equal justice under the law. I am concerned about things that he said about foreign dark money influencing our campaigns. His record demonstrated very clearly to me that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh would continue to prioritize the interests of the powerful few over the rights of everyday Americans and that we would see an erosion of individual rights in this country. But I still believed we needed to have a fair and thorough vetting of this nominee consistent with our constitutional obligations and that it would eventually get to the floor and we would have our vote.

In the many weeks leading up to Judge Kavanaugh's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, many Democratic colleagues and I pushed for the same kind of transparency and a process. Even if we knew where we were going to go, the process should have been fair. The process should have been bipartisan.

The Judiciary Committee has a long history of the majority and minority working together to set ground rules for the committee process. I watched the Judiciary Committee for many years before I came to this body. It was the No. 1 committee I wanted to be on 5 years ago when I came to the Senate. There are legends still on that committee, statesmen on both sides of the aisle, men I respect. But this process from the very beginning has been a sham. It has undermined the ability of Senators to perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent on the nominee because of the withholding of critical information that I believe is absolutely necessary to evaluate someone.

This constitutional duty means that we should have a process that allows transparency into that person's record. The public has a right to know who the individual is that we are voting on tomorrow, what their record is. The public has a right to know. Why would we hide their record from public scrutiny?

Step 1 of the sham was the Republican majority's refusal to request any records from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary to President George Bush. Zero records were requested whatsoever. Brett Kavanaugh himself held that position for 3 years. He called those 3 years of his year the ``most interesting and most formative years'' of his career, the most interesting and formative in shaping his approach to serving as a judge and during which he presumably advised the President on everything from national security policy to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. So many critical issues that are germane to his job and his experience and the formation of his ideals were happening during those times. But they said we could see nothing from his record, even things that are not classified, not national security, things that would give us a better window into who he is.

Step 2 of the sham was to create a wholly unaccountable process for the fraction of the White House records that the Republican majority did request from Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office. This process was essentially made up. It had no reflection on the history of his body of work--no reflection at all.

What happened was they put into place a practice where a private lawyer, Bill Burck--who happens to be a longtime political operative, who was a former deputy to Brett Kavanaugh himself when he was Staff Secretary--was put into part of the process as a choke hold on documents getting to Senators for our evaluation. Most of the documents of this candidate's work product have not been seen by any Senator here. In fact, about 90 percent of his relevant work experience, his relevant work product, has not been reviewed by any Senator here.

Imagine hiring somebody whose resume you have only seen 10 percent of because 90 percent is obscured. Most of the folks here wouldn't hire an intern in their office if somebody was hiding 90 percent of their resume.

Then there is step 3 of the sham. In conjunction with Mr. Burck, the committee chairman designated 186,000 pages something that was new called ``committee confidential'' in order to hide them from the public because they might harm the nomination. Imagine this: With the public having a right to know, the public needing transparency, now they are hiding yet again, under the name ``committee confidential,'' critical documents. They withheld 102,000 pages from the committee altogether, threatening to invoke some nebulous constitutional privilege. As a result, today, just hours before the final vote, only 7 percent of Kavanaugh's record from the Bush White House has been released to Senators. We are making a decision knowing only 7 percent of his work product.

When women's rights, workers' rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, and affordable healthcare are all in the balance, we know so little about this candidate. Because of all that is at stake, several colleagues and I made a decision to release those documents, but it was still just a fraction.

Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh's initial testimony before the Judiciary Committee raised my concern because he continued to evade questions, refused to answer our questions.

After Dr. Blasey Ford came forward, he gave his testimony, and I was stunned. You see, at Judge Kavanaugh's initial hearing in early September, he testified that he wanted to stay ``three zip codes away from politics.'' He insisted that the Supreme Court must never--I emphasize that word--never be viewed as a partisan institution. But when he came before the Judiciary Committee again last week, Judge Kavanaugh jettisoned his own advice, his own belief in judicial temperament, his own belief in how a judge should behave and be nonpartisan, and he leveled blatantly political accusations. He said that the allegations against him were nothing more than ``an orchestrated political hit,'' even speculating that they were motivated by ``a revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He cast blame on outside, leftwing opposition groups. He told the Democrats who were questioning him that the hearings had been ``an embarrassment.'' He was belligerent. He was evasive. At times, he was outright deceptive, and at times, he was deeply disrespectful to my Senate colleagues. He displayed the type of fierce partisanship that no American should ever want to see in a Federal judge. He went on to say almost as a menacing threat that ``what goes around, comes around.''

Is this someone who can sit on the highest Court in the land, where political issues might come before him? Has he not already revealed himself to be deeply partisan? Has he not already revealed himself to have a deep-seeded anger toward people of certain political stripe? Is this someone who shows the kind of judicial temperament, not for a district court, not for a circuit court, but for the highest Court in the land, the Court of last resort?

He didn't say all of this in response to questions. These weren't off-the-cuff comments. This was part of his prepared testimony. Those quotes were in his prepared testimony.

In another instance during his testimony, he warned that ``this is a circus.'' He said, ``The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.''

That is how I want to end. What are the consequences for a sham process, for a sham FBI investigation? What are the consequences in relation to women who came forward before the world's most deliberative body with credible accusations of sexual misconduct, of sexual assault, of sexual violence? What are the consequences to a body that runs a partisan process, that ignores the truth, that shields relevant aspects of his record--90 percent--from the public? What are the consequences as they rush to the Senate floor hoping nobody knows the truth and ignoring investigating some of the most serious charges that could be leveled against someone--charges of violence, charges of assault? What are the consequences for us in this body behaving in this way? What are the consequences for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has forever altered her life for her civic duty, for her patriotism, for her love of country? She sacrificed to come forward, and how do we treat her?

This has been an emotional week for so many. I have seen and heard and witnessed the pain and the trauma that has been dredged up. I have heard from some of my colleagues in private meetings about dozens of people coming forward to them, having never told people about their sexual assault, and now they come and tell their Senator, hoping that their story and that their pain that they haven't even shared with their spouse will somehow make a difference in the larger story of our country, will somehow make a difference at this moment when two women are not being listened to and when their stories are not getting worthy recognition, worthy investigation. I heard colleague after colleague tell me the stories, the painful stories.

I heard them myself from friends of mine who I never knew had been assaulted. I never knew of their pain, never knew of their trauma. But at this moment in American history, they felt they had to come forward. They had to tell their truth, like Christine Blasey Ford, like Ms. Ramirez. They felt now was the time to speak up and stop this Nation from making a mistake and try to stop the injustice and try to end a national nightmare where one out of three women is assaulted and most of them don't feel comfortable coming forward. They don't feel safe coming forward. They feel that if they come forward, they will be maligned, hated, disrespected, disregarded; that their charges will be swept under the rug; that their charges will be ignored. Yet a chorus of women and men all across this country have been telling their stories, screaming at this Nation, hoping the national conversation will shift in this country from abusing those who have been abused to elevating truth again.

This body has had a test, and we are failing that test. This body has had a chance. This body has had a responsibility, and we have surrendered that responsibility. So tomorrow we vote. It seems like the die is cast.

I heard there were celebrations and cheering in the White House. And in the last few hours, I also heard the pain and the anguish and the hurt, and I have heard the tears. It seems so unjust. It seems so unfair that two courageous women came forward to this body, and we couldn't even investigate their claims. We couldn't even take time to talk to witnesses. A lot of folks are now asking me: What now?

I want to conclude by reading some words from another painful period where people didn't know what this body would do. There was injustice in this land. People didn't know what this body would do. Hundreds of thousands came forward to march and to protest and to sit in. They didn't know what this body would do, but they stood anyway and they fought anyway. Sometimes they were beaten. In one case, on a bridge in Alabama, they were beaten and bloodied. One of my colleagues in the other Chamber, John Lewis, had his head split open. They eventually got over that bridge and got to Montgomery, and a man named King gave this speech to those people who were tempted to surrender to cynicism in that time. He gave this speech to those people who wanted to give up. He gave this speech to those people who were hurting. This is what he said:

I know you're asking today, ``How long will it take? Somebody's asking, ``How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright- eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?'' Somebody's asking, ``When will wounded justice, lying in prostrate on the streets . . . be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?'' Somebody's asking, ``When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, plucked from the weary soul with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?''

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because ``truth crushed to the earth will rise again.''

How long? Not long, because ``no lie can live forever.''

How long? Not long, because ``you shall reap what you sow.''

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

I say to every American who is hurting tonight, every American who is angry tonight, tomorrow we face a defeat, but we shall not be defeated. Tomorrow, it may seem like a loss, but all hope is not lost.

I have faith in us as a country. I know it has been a long journey. I know we have suffered much, but I have a faith in this country that is abiding and cannot be destroyed because we are a nation that always finds a way to move forward, to learn, to grow. What is dependent upon us doing that is for us to never ever give up. Never give up.

The days ahead will be difficult. It will not be easy, but I have faith in America. We will learn. We will grow. We will get better. We will come together if we never give up.

Tomorrow, the vote may be what it is. The die may be cast, but I will never give up on this country. I will never give up on women. I will never give up on the ideals and principles we all swear an oath to that this Nation, one day, truly will be a nation of liberty and justice for all.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source