[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 165 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6533-S6537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I know that the Presiding Officer has been 
present in the Chair a few times when I have given this speech. It is 
not a prepared speech. It is an update on a travesty of justice that is 
continuing in Turkey.
  Today is October 4. On October 7, 2016, a man named Andrew Brunson, a 
Presbyterian minister from my State of North Carolina, up near Black 
Mountain, was arrested by Turkish authorities.
  Pastor Brunson has been a missionary in Turkey for about 20 years. In 
2016, there was an illegal coup attempt. The people associated with it 
should go to prison because there should not be violent changes of 
power in nations. They have an election process, and they should honor 
it. I have no problem when there is evidence of people who have been 
associated with an illegal coup going to prison, but I have a real 
problem with a man who for the last 2 years has been in a Turkish 
prison and went 19 months without an indictment. He was held without 
charges for 19 months. Over the last couple of months, we finally got 
him into house arrest.
  Then they put together an indictment that is truly something that I 
don't think could keep someone in an American jail overnight. I read it 
and felt so strongly about it that I decided to go to Turkey and be in 
the courtroom for 16 hours when he sat through his nearly 12-hour 
hearing.
  I was in that courtroom for the whole time, a courtroom just outside 
of Izmir. It was the second time I was there. I was there 2 months 
earlier to visit him in prison and to let him know that the U.S. Senate 
and the U.S. Congress knows he is there and we are not going to forget 
him. We had nearly 70 Senators sign on to a letter to that effect.
  The reason I do this speech is to remind the American people about 
Pastor Brunson and to remind them about other Americans and Turkish-
Americans who are in prison, suggesting that they were a part of trying 
to overthrow President Erdogan's government.
  It will be 2 years on the 7th of this month. That is 727 days that he 
has been held in prison.
  But what I want to talk about is kind of related to a subject we are 
discussing on the floor in another matter, and that is unsubstantiated 
allegations. This man has over 11 unsubstantiated allegations. What 
does that mean?
  Somebody says: I saw somebody do this.
  Yet they produce nobody else that can actually corroborate it, in 
other words, saying: Yes, I remember that happening; I agree with that 
testimony.
  There were 11 different allegations. Many of the people who testified 
wouldn't even show their faces. They were on a video screen with 
digital blocking and with their voices hidden. Some of them we now know 
are in Turkish prisons themselves.
  None of the allegations have been corroborated by a single person. 
Yet this American, this man who was bringing the word of God to the 
people who wanted to hear it--he wasn't forcing it on them; he was 
asking them into the church if they wanted to sit through a service on 
a Sunday or during the week--was put in prison. He was put in prison 
for allegations.
  One person who is also in prison said that one night they saw a light 
on up in the upstairs part of this very small church. It only fits 
about 100 people, and there is a little office upstairs. There was a 
light on for 4 hours, and, therefore, something bad must have been 
happening in there.
  There is another real problem with that allegation. It turns out that 
when I went to Izmir and to that church, there is no window in that 
upstairs room. Yet that is an unsubstantiated allegation that has 
landed this man in prison and subjected him to a possible 35-year 
prison sentence in Turkey.
  Another was a media post by his daughter, who ate a meal that the 
Turkish authorities said is a meal that is commonly eaten by terrorist 
organizations and so, therefore, she must be associated with that 
organization. That is the level of the allegation. In fact, it is one 
the more popular dishes enjoyed by many people--Kurds, Turks, and a 
number of people in the Middle East--but those are the unsubstantiated 
allegations that have kept this man in prison for 2 years and could 
potentially keep him in prison for 35 years.
  He is coming up on his final court date, where they will either 
release him or imprison him.
  I want to thank President Trump for making this a priority. I want to 
thank Secretary of State Pompeo for making this a priority. I want to 
thank my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, who voted on a 
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that says: Turkey, 
if you go down this path, there will be consequences. If you go down 
this path, you may not see the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ever on 
Turkish territory. We may have to rethink the supply chain that runs 
through Turkey to build the F-35. We may actually have to take 
additional measures.
  I am watching them. Right now, I am trying to show them respect and 
hope that they do the right thing, but I want Pastor Brunson and his 
wife Norine and all of the people who belong to his church--the same 
church that the Reverend Billy Graham was associated with--to know that 
if justice is not served, then, we will continue to put the pressure on 
Turkey in any way that I can for as long as I am a U.S. Senator.
  Tonight I would just ask anybody watching this on C-Span and all of 
my colleagues to just pray for Pastor Brunson, to pray for his release. 
I hope that I don't have to come to you for additional support to 
remind Turkey that our American justice system would never put a 
Turkish person in prison and our NATO ally should understand that we 
want him treated with respect and their very strong partner, the United 
States of America, treated with respect.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a long and arduous process is finally 
drawing to a close. In the next couple of days, we will vote on Judge 
Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. I will be voting 
yes.
  Last week, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee about an allegation she made about Judge Kavanaugh. 
Dr. Ford deserved to be heard, and she was. Her claims deserved to be 
investigated, and they were, thoroughly, by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. Then they were investigated again by the FBI.
  Here is what we have learned after seven FBI background 
investigations, more than 2 weeks of committee investigations, and a 
day-long hearing in which both sides were heard: There is not one scrap 
of corroborating evidence

[[Page S6534]]

to back up her claims against Judge Kavanaugh.
  Person after person after person has given testimony of Judge 
Kavanaugh's good character, both in high school and in his adult life. 
Sixty-five women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school sent a letter 
to the Senate Judiciary Committee noting that he always treated women 
with ``decency and respect.''
  It has become clear that for many of my Democratic colleagues, zero 
evidence was never going to be enough. Innocent until proven guilty 
doesn't seem to be a concept that my Democratic colleagues understand. 
Instead, my Democratic colleagues seem to be putting forth a new 
standard: Guilty no matter what, even with evidence to the contrary, 
which is scary because innocent until proven guilty is a pretty 
foundational principle of our system of government, and it is a 
powerful safeguard against destroying the lives of innocent people with 
false accusations.
  The truth is, to many of our Democratic colleagues, Judge Kavanaugh 
has been guilty since the moment he was nominated. He is guilty of 
being a Republican. He is guilty of being nominated by a Republican 
President. He is guilty of pledging his allegiance to the law instead 
of to Democrats' preferred judicial outcomes. So any means of defeating 
him became fair game, no matter how unjust, no matter how outlandish.
  Dr. Ford certainly deserved to have her claims heard and 
investigated, but Democrats didn't stop there. They gave credence to 
almost every accusation that was thrown out, no matter how ridiculous 
or uncorroborated. It didn't matter if no less a paper than the New 
York Times had declined to publish an accusation for lack of any 
corroboration. If it would slow down Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, 
they grabbed onto it.
  At least one Democratic Senator suggested that we needed an FBI 
investigation because Judge Kavanaugh had thrown ice at someone in 
college. Apparently, throwing ice in college is now grounds for an FBI 
investigation. What is next--an FBI investigation because Judge 
Kavanaugh stole another kid's toy in preschool or because he didn't 
share his swing on the playground during recess?
  The confirmation process for Judge Kavanaugh has gotten particularly 
ugly in the last couple of weeks, but the truth is, it was ugly from 
the beginning. Long before Dr. Ford had made any accusations, one 
Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee said that those who 
supported Judge Kavanaugh would be complicit in evil.
  For starters, let's point out that Judge Kavanaugh is a mainstream 
judge. During his time on the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh's Democrat-
appointed colleagues have been just as likely to join his majority 
opinions as his Republican-appointed colleagues.
  Judge Kavanaugh has won admiration from across the political spectrum 
for his intellect, his fairness, and his dedication to the law.
  Former Obama Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal noted this about 
Judge Kavanaugh:

       I think it's very hard for anyone who's worked with him, 
     appeared before him, to, frankly, say a bad word about him.
       In my practice we basically have a rule: If there's a 
     Kavanaugh clerk who applies, we hire that person.

  Thirty-four of Judge Kavanaugh's law clerks wrote a letter on his 
nomination which said, in part:

       Our views on politics, on many of the important legal 
     issues faced by the Supreme Court, and on judicial 
     philosophy, are diverse. Our ranks include Republicans, 
     Democrats, and Independents. But we are united in this: Our 
     admiration and fondness for Judge Kavanaugh run deep. For 
     each of us . . . it was a tremendous stroke of luck to work 
     for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, 
     generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering 
     care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law 
     clerks.

  Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan--certainly not someone Democrats 
think of as either evil or an extremist--hired Judge Kavanaugh to teach 
at Harvard Law School, where he has served as the Williston Lecturer on 
Law.
  Both inside and outside his profession, those who know him praise his 
character.
  Eighty-four women who worked with him in the Bush administration sent 
a letter praising him as ``a man of the highest integrity.''
  A self-described liberal Democrat and feminist lawyer who knows Judge 
Kavanaugh and knows him well wrote the following in an op-ed for 
Politico:

       My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-
     qualified, brilliant, has integrity, and is within the 
     mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those 
     criteria.
       Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and 
     mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so, too, 
     does Kavanaugh--not because he will come out the way I want 
     in each case and even most cases, but because he will do the 
     job with dignity, intelligence, empathy, and integrity.

  That is from a liberal lawyer. This is the man that the junior 
Democrat from New Jersey said it would be ``evil'' to support.

  I frequently disagree with my Democratic colleagues on policy issues, 
oftentimes quite strongly, but I don't go around calling my colleagues 
``evil'' because we disagree. I know that word should be reserved for 
people who have truly malicious motivations or who have done truly 
terrible things--not people who, like me, want to do what is best for 
our country but have different opinions about how to get there.
  What kind of an example does the Senator from New Jersey's rhetoric 
set for our children--that civil disagreement is impossible; that 
anyone whose opinion differs from our own should not be tolerated; that 
our fellow Americans are not just our political opponents but our 
enemies?
  Democrats like to accuse the President of using irresponsible 
rhetoric. I might suggest they take a long hard look in the mirror.
  But it is not just the Democrats' rhetoric that has been extreme and 
irresponsible throughout this process, so has their handling of Dr. 
Ford's allegation. The ranking member on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, the senior Senator from California, sat on Dr. Ford's 
allegation for 6 weeks without sharing the allegation with Republicans.
  During that time, she never once questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the 
accusation, despite having multiple chances to do so, both in public 
and in private. If the ranking member thought this accusation was 
credible, she had an absolute responsibility to disclose it to the 
committee or to the FBI immediately. She also had an obligation to ask 
Judge Kavanaugh about it. She did neither.
  If, on the other hand, she thought it was false--which is the only 
excuse for her silence--then the Democrats' decision to exploit this 
accusation for political gain is appalling. In either case, Democrats 
have behaved with a total lack of responsibility throughout this 
process.
  Not only have they shown not the slightest concern about the 
possibility of tarnishing a good man's name, they also displayed no 
real concern for Dr. Ford. Clearly, they had no particular interest in 
giving her or her allegation a hearing until it became politically 
expedient to do so. If they had really cared about her accusation, they 
would have brought it up immediately and questioned Judge Kavanaugh 
about it immediately. Instead, they held it in reserve, apparently to 
be deployed in the event that they needed it to delay the confirmation 
process.
  It is shameful but not surprising. As I said earlier, Democrats made 
clear from the beginning that they would do anything they could to 
defeat Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Throughout this process, they have 
grasped any straw that appeared: too few documents, too many documents, 
an unrelated investigation, outlandish accusations.
  Then, after last week's hearing, when it became clear there was no 
evidence against Judge Kavanaugh, they jumped on his demeanor at the 
hearing. Now he was unqualified because he passionately defended his 
good name in front of the committee. Apparently, it is not OK to be 
angry when your good name has been dragged through the mud and your 
family has been threatened.
  Today, of course, now that we have gotten the results of the FBI 
investigation, which Democrats requested, by the way, Democrats are now 
saying that Judge Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because the FBI 
investigation wasn't long enough or thorough enough.
  I would like to ask: Does anyone here think there is any FBI 
investigation

[[Page S6535]]

that would have satisfied my Democratic colleagues? After all, we know 
Democrats have been opposed to Judge Kavanaugh from the very beginning. 
A number of them announced their opposition before the ink was even dry 
on his nomination. Are we really supposed to believe they were going to 
change their minds after yet another FBI investigation?
  Despite the well-coordinated intimidation tactics of the far left, we 
are moving forward. We are about to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination, as we should be. But I can't help but reflect on the 
process of getting here.
  I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues if this is what they 
think the process should look like going forward. Do they really think 
that Supreme Court confirmations should be characterized by intense 
partisanship and unsubstantiated character attacks? Do they really want 
to do away with the presumption of innocence and allow innuendo--the 
substitute for evidence? Do they really think it is OK to stop at 
nothing to tank a nomination?
  Tomorrow and Saturday, I will be casting my vote for Judge Kavanaugh. 
I will be voting for him because he is supremely qualified. We all know 
that. The Democrats know that. I will be voting for him because he is a 
man of character and integrity, and I will be voting for him because I 
know that he can be relied on to uphold the rule of law and the 
Constitution. I invite not just my Republican but my independent-
thinking Democratic colleagues to join me. It is not too late to say no 
to the politics of personal destruction. It is not too late to say no 
to unchecked partisanship. It is not too late to put this eminently 
qualified nominee on the Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.

[[Page S6536]]

  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

[[Page S6537]]

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.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________