John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been a little more than a week since President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the impending retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In that short period of time, we have seen some of our friends across the aisle run through an almost impressive set of rhetorical calisthenics in an attempt to tank Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation before it even had a chance to begin. ``He will overturn this case or this law,'' they claim. ``He will not be a check on the President,'' they have tried to say. They have even suggested that he charged too much for baseball season tickets on his credit card--horror of horrors. Multiple fact-checkers have debunked each of these claims, so they have moved on. More recently, we have heard from some of our Democratic colleagues that they want to review every single piece of paper--every email, every memo, every document that has passed across Brett Kavanaugh's desk at any point in his career. Reviewing relevant and important documents is a perfectly normal part of confirming a judicial nominee, but using that as an excuse to delay, foot-drag, and obstruct is not acceptable. We know that the effort to get every memo from the Bush White House during the time he served as Staff Secretary there is really laughable and is only a fishing expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the Supreme Court begins its work the first Monday in October. For example, as Staff Secretary, he would have had the responsibility to basically manage the paper flow across the President's desk. These aren't just documents that he, himself, has generated. In fact, I suspect that with the overwhelming majority of them, he would have had nothing to do with creating them. He wouldn't be the author. He wouldn't be making policy recommendations. Basically, he would have navigated all of the documents that went across the President's desk to make sure that they had been reviewed by the appropriate person and that they would have been checked for accuracy. The ideas that every single piece of paper that went across President George W. Bush's desk should be somehow relevant and that we should delay confirmation until we have all had a chance to read it are ridiculous. Is what President Bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court? Obviously not. Just as, in 2010, the committee quickly processed Justice Kagan, who spent many years in the Clinton White House, I am confident we can expeditiously and efficiently review Judge Kavanaugh's relevant background materials to make sure the vote on his confirmation occurs before the Supreme Court reconvenes in October. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee will work to produce as many documents as are relevant and possible so that every Senator can do their due diligence. An important part of our constitutional responsibility is to provide advice and consent, as the Constitution itself says. The most important thing to remember is that unlike the Kagan nomination, we have 12 years of service on the bench by Judge Kavanaugh. He served on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in what has often been called the second most important court in the Nation because it is located in the District of Columbia. Most of the major cases involving huge policy disputes confronting the Federal Government have made their way through his court, and he has written opinions--majority opinions and dissenting opinions--which have all been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I submit that would be the best evidence of what kind of Justice he would be on the Supreme Court. What kind of judge has he been on the DC Circuit? That is the best evidence. We shouldn't indulge requests for these fishing expeditions and paper chases that will lead to nothing other than delay. It is important that the vetting process be deliberative and thorough, and it will be. But the volume of documents requested shouldn't be just a pretext to draw this out for political purposes. Here is an important factoid: Nearly half of the Democratic caucus has already said that they will vote no on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Are they going to be requesting documents? Are they going to be saying ``Well, I want to look at everything that came across his desk'' when they have already announced their public opposition? Five of them announced their opposition before Judge Kavanaugh was even named. In other words, they would oppose anyone who is nominated by this President. We saw an attempt to filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the change of the precedent. We lowered the number of votes to close off debate from 60 votes to 51 votes because we realized that some across the aisle were so determined to vote against any nominee of this President--no matter how well qualified--there was no way we could confirm a well-qualified candidate. So we changed that. Both Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch were confirmed just 66 days after they were nominated. In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, if that same timetable held up, we would be voting on his confirmation about September 13--well in advance of the October deadline when the Court reconvenes. We will have plenty of time to thoroughly vet this nominee in a similar timeframe, which is consistent with the confirmation process for both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I had the good fortune to sit down with Judge Kavanaugh last week and to renew my acquaintance with him, which first occurred in 2000. As I have recounted here on the floor, when I was attorney general of Texas, I had the privilege to argue a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. As one of the best qualified appellate lawyers in the country, having clerked on the Supreme Court, as well, he was one of the lawyers who helped me get ready for that oral argument. I had a chance not only to get to know him in 2000 but to follow his career on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has consistently impressed me with his thoughtfulness, his deliberativeness, his outstanding legal and academic credentials, and, of course, his experience on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He was candid and open, professional and impressive. I hope all of our colleagues will meet with Judge Kavanaugh to see for themselves. I have been told that he has been making calls to some Democratic Senators' offices, and they refuse to see him at all. He is an accomplished jurist who will fairly and faithfully apply the law as written and adhere to the text of the Constitution, as judges are obligated to do, and leave the policymaking and the politics to the Congress and the executive branch. I look forward to continuing our vetting process and voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this fall--well in advance of the October term of the Supreme Court. On a separate note, Mr. President, this afternoon, we will vote to confirm another accomplished legal mind, Andy Oldham, to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas. Andy will join two other judges whom we have already confirmed in the Fifth Circuit earlier this year: Don Willett, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, and Jim Ho, my former chief counsel, someone with impeccable legal credentials. They are already on the Fifth Circuit. I am delighted that Andy Oldham will be joining them. As we like to say in Texas, Andy wasn't born there, but he got there as fast as he could. He grew up in Richmond, VA, where his parents instilled within him a sense of hard work. His father put himself through college, and his mother was one of the first women to attend the University of Virginia. Following their examples, Andy attended the University of Virginia and was awarded the prestigious title of Jefferson Scholar. While he was at UVA, he helped found an advocacy group to prevent sexual assault. His group was particularly focused on educating young men on their responsibilities when it comes to sexual violence. From there, he attended the University of Cambridge as a Truman Scholar, graduated with first class honors, and then went to law school at Harvard--very impressive academic credentials. During law school, he helped represent a death row inmate in a habeas corpus petition and won a temporary stay of execution in the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on Andy's hard work, the then-Governor of Virginia, who is now a Member of the Senate, commuted the defendant's sentence to life without parole based upon Andy's legal representation. After law school, he went on to clerk for Judge Sentelle on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which I spoke about in connection with Brett Kavanaugh. Then he served as an attorney to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel; that is, the lawyers for the lawyers at the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, who issue authoritative guidance for the Department of Justice. And then, of course, he served as a law clerk for Justice Alito on the Supreme Court. Following a period of private practice, the State of Texas came calling, and Andy became a deputy solicitor general in the office of the Texas attorney general; then it was Greg Abbott, whom he later followed to the Governor's office, where he now serves as Governor Abbott's general counsel. On behalf of the State of Texas, Andy has argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and filed countless briefs in support of the State. Because of his background and experience, Andy has earned bipartisan support, receiving recommendations from the general counsel to the Obama Foundation, as well as the Texas attorney general's office. In his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Andy spoke about his transition from a role as an advocate to that of a jurist. He explained how he views the role of a jurist as ``fundamentally different,'' which it is. He went on to say that ``the oath of a jurist is simply to administer justice impartially, to do equal right by rich and poor, and to discharge justice in an equal and fair manner.'' This is exactly the type of judge we should want serving on our courts--someone who is impartial, not someone who will push for a particular ideology or political agenda on the bench. I believe Andy will follow this philosophy of impartially and fairly administering the law. Andy spent all but 3 years of his career in public service, and he has advocated on behalf of Texans for many years. I am confident he will continue to serve them and the rest of the country well, and I look forward to supporting his nomination this afternoon.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the ``Abolish ICE'' movement and the reasons that is a misconceived idea by some on the left, but first I feel compelled to respond just briefly to some of the comments made by our friend from New York, the Democratic leader. First of all, the Democratic leader says we need to have hearings on the matter of Russian interference in our elections. I would remind the Democratic leader that we have been doing that for a long time--ever since the intelligence community assessment was released at the end of the Obama administration documenting Russia's meddling in the election. That assessment was released on an unclassified basis. It is on the website of the Director of National Intelligence if anybody wants to read it. Also, I would submit to him the 29-page indictment that Robert Mueller had issued by a grand jury against 12 Russian intelligence officers. It lays out in minute detail what the Russians were doing to try to cause confusion and undermine public confidence in our elections. As a matter of fact, this afternoon the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is hearing from some Obama administration officials on why they didn't do more to stop it back when President Obama was in office when they knew very clearly what was going on but did not do--well, did virtually nothing to stop it. So I would say to my friend from New York, the Democratic leader, there have been a lot of hearings, and the hearings are ongoing. Obviously, Special Counsel Mueller has issued this indictment. I only wish that it was more than a name-and-shame exercise because there is no chance the Russians will extradite these intelligence officers over here for a trial. But I think it does serve a useful educational purpose by pointing out in minute detail what the Russians have been up to. They have upped their game in a way that is surprising to many people, having used everything from propaganda, to social media, to cyber theft of information like the Clinton emails and the DNC emails during the course of the last election. It has gotten very sophisticated. We better be about fixing it and getting ready for the next election rather than coming to the floor and engaging in the favorite Washington pastime, which is the blame game. Senator Schumer said we need to issue sanctions against Russia. Well, I have in front of me about two single-spaced pages of actions that we have taken since the beginning of the Trump administration to support our allies against Russian aggression and to punish Russian misconduct, whether it is in the elections or otherwise. I would entertain--I understand the Senator from Colorado has some additional sanctions he thinks would be appropriate, and I think that would be something that would sting. Rather than just sending a press release or trying to message this or use it for partisan political purposes, let's consider additional sanctions that will actually discourage and hold accountable the Russians for their election meddling and deter them, hopefully, from doing it again. I understand the fourth thing my friend from New York said is that we need to stop criticizing the Comey FBI and the Department of Justice under the Obama administration. Well, it is pretty clear from the investigations that have occurred that something rotten was happening at the leadership of the FBI. Just to listen to Mr. Strzok--and his protestations that there was no bias associated with those investigations are patently unbelievable. It is unbelievable, not credible. So I understand that the Democratic leader wants to focus his attention on the President. That is his prerogative, and, indeed, he has been the leader of the anti-Trump resistance since President Trump was elected. Many of us do disagree with the President's assessment of the intelligence, as I have suggested. I firmly believe there is solid evidence of Russian meddling in the election. I think President Putin misrepresented the facts. I am not surprised by that given who he is and how he operates. As the Democratic leader said, as a former KGB colonel, he is accustomed to dissembling and distorting, manipulating information in a way that serves his purpose. I think we should be absolutely clear. We all support the men and women who are the professionals who make up the intelligence community in this country, many of whom expose themselves to great danger, and, indeed, many have lost their lives trying to protect this country against adversaries around the world. I think the findings of the intelligence community assessment during the end of the Obama administration provides a roadmap to what the Russians did, as did the indictment of the 12 Russian GRU intelligence officials. We better wake up. Rather than the blame game and pointing fingers, we better get ready for the next election, the midterm election in 2018. I think there is a lot we can do together, but as long as this becomes a political, partisan, stop-Trump-at-all-costs effort, I don't think we are going to make much progress. I will conclude this part of my remarks by saying that I trust our intelligence community. I trust their assessment that there was Russian meddling in the election. But I also trust the investigation so far, which has shown absolutely no collusion with the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence activity leading up to the election. That is what I think has the President so spun up, because he feels as though this is an attack on him personally. I wish we could separate those two. But, indeed, our Democratic colleagues don't want to separate them because they realize this is the best way to keep this story going for as long as they can through the next election and, who knows, through the next Presidential election as well.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week I had the chance to reconnect with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the President's choice to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding Anthony Kennedy, who has announced his retirement effective at the end of this month. I say reconnect because I actually met Judge Kavanaugh back in 2000, when, as attorney general of Texas, I had the great privilege to represent my State in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in an oral argument. As part of my preparation for that argument--something that is sort of like the Super Bowl for lawyers--I had a chance to practice that argument in a moot court, as it is called, in front of three distinguished Supreme Court advocates, including Brett Kavanaugh, who at that time was a private lawyer. I am sure I benefitted from his help, as I did from the help of the other two. I have followed Judge Kavanaugh's career closely in the 18 years since I met him. Of course, in the last 12 years, he has served with distinction on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which some have called the second most powerful court in the Nation, since most of the controversial litigation involving the Federal Government tends to come up through that appellate court from the district courts here in the District of Columbia. Based on what I know of Brett Kavanaugh, I am pleased with the nominee the President has chosen. After talking to him again, I look forward to supporting his nomination and doing everything I can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. On the issue of bipartisanship, let me just point out that Justice Gorsuch was confirmed by 54 votes, a bipartisan vote of confirmation. I would expect, based upon his similar qualifications in many ways-- outstanding academic record, outstanding experience, and demonstrated ability on a circuit court of appeals--that I would think and expect that Justice Kavanaugh would get a bipartisan confirmation vote, much as Justice Gorsuch has. Obviously, they are two different individuals, but in terms of their experience, education, preparation, and judicial philosophy, I think it would be difficult to explain why one would vote for Justice Gorsuch's confirmation and vote against Justice Kavanaugh. I know Members of the Senate take our responsibilities to provide advice and consent very seriously. I know a number of our colleagues who don't have the benefit of 18 years of familiarity with the judge will want to do their homework, and that is exactly as it should be. A bipartisan questionnaire has now gone out to the judge from the Judiciary Committee. Senator Feinstein, the Democratic ranking member, and Senator Grassley, the Republican chairman, have sent a questionnaire, asking him to answer a litany of questions necessary for the Judiciary Committee to prepare for the hearing, which I hope will occur sometime in mid-August or so. We know also that nominees for judicial office get a very extensive background check, and that will have to be updated. I am sure that will take place as well. Then, we all will have the chance to meet with Judge Kavanaugh, as I did, and to make our own personal assessment after asking questions and getting his answers to those questions. Many people have now become familiar with the arc of his career: graduating with honors from Yale College, graduating Yale Law School, clerking for two appellate judges before clerking for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. From there he went on to work as the Staff Secretary at the White House. I want to pause and talk about what the Staff Secretary at the White House does. This is kind of an obscure but important position. Basically, you are the last eyes on a document before the President signs it. So what that means is there is a tremendous responsibility to coordinate and to verify the accuracy of the contents of the documents and that they reflect the policies that the President does indeed support before it is presented to him for his signature. I mention the Staff Secretary position because the last time Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, there was no discussion about getting the voluminous copies of records that came across his desk as Staff Secretary. No one particularly thought that those were very useful, and that is for understandable reasons. He didn't author those documents. He didn't create them, but he was responsible for their verification and authentication and to see that they got to the President after having been reviewed as they should be. So as for any excuse that we hear along this confirmation process that the thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe millions--of documents that would have come across his desk as Staff Secretary will have to all be produced before Senators can vote on his confirmation, well, they didn't do that back when he was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I think it makes no logical sense that documents that came across his desk that he did not create and he did not vouch for are relevant, but, rather, that represents a fishing expedition designed to delay the confirmation process unnecessarily. After he was Staff Secretary at the White House, he practiced law. Then, of course, he was confirmed to the Federal bench. His resume is really one that speaks for itself, but I want to address some of the character assassinations that have already begun about the judge because it is pretty troubling, knowing him as I have come to know him, to hear these accusations and descriptions, which I think are pure fantasy. They are worse than that. As I said, they are character assassinations. They are conspiracy theories. They are designed to cause good people to doubt this nominee, but there is a good answer to each of them. First comes one from House Minority Leader Pelosi, who has no role whatsoever in the Supreme Court process. The Senate has the responsibility of providing advice and consent. The House of Representatives is a virtual spectator, like the rest of the American population. She called his nomination ``a clear and respectful assault on the fundamental rights of women.'' It is an outrageous statement. NARAL Pro-Choice America, the national abortion rights action league, has claimed that any vote to confirm him would be one that would ``punish women.'' This same group also degenerated into a middle-school mocking of his name. I am not sure what relevance that has, but it shows, I believe, how desperate opponents of this nomination are. If you don't have anything substantive to offer as criticism or if you don't have policy differences that you want to debate, engage in name calling. That is all this is. A Yale Law professor, Amy Chua, wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal about how Judge Kavanaugh had been a mentor to young female lawyers whom he has engaged with over his legal career. The professor wrote that since he joined the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 2006, a quarter of the judge's law clerks, the most valued members of his staff, have been members of a minority group--one or the other--and more than half, 25 out of 48, have been women. Years ago, when I was a member of the Texas Supreme Court, it seemed as though I also had a similar proclivity to hire female clerks. I asked one of them one day: Why is it you think I hired you to be my law clerk? She said: It is easy, Judge--women are smarter, and they work harder. Perhaps that is what Judge Kavanaugh discovered during his experience too. These women, these former clerks, have spoken glowingly about Judge Kavanaugh's mentorship and his personal decency and support and encouragement for their careers. It is absurd and hyperbolic to call Judge Kavanaugh anti-woman. It is so ridiculous. You would wonder why anybody would feel as if they needed to respond. Here in Washington, DC, in the echo chamber inside the beltway and with all the special interest groups and the mainstream media unfortunately many times repeating these falsehoods over and over again, it is necessary for some of us to stand up and say: This is blatantly false. The women who know Judge Kavanaugh best and worked alongside him in his chambers would take issue with Ms. Pelosi's characterization. A second line of conspiracy theories regarding Judge Kavanaugh relates to Presidential power. Some have claimed that Judge Kavanaugh believes that a President cannot be indicted for a crime and that that should be an automatic disqualification for Supreme Court consideration. Well, this arises out of a misreading and a misunderstanding of a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article he wrote that explored a gray area of the law and suggested that Congress consider legislation that would defer civil lawsuits and criminal charges until after the President leaves office. As people will remember, Judge Kavanaugh worked for a while for the independent counsel who was investigating then-President Clinton. He said he learned from that experience that a President is busy doing so many things, it really makes sense not to provide immunity but, rather, to defer litigation of those criminal indictments, should there be any, and civil cases until after the President leaves office. He was quick to note that if the President ever engaged in serious misconduct, there was always the option of impeachment, which is very different from a criminal case. It is one where Congress expresses its view on the suitability of an office holder to continue holding office, and that is always a last resort. As one fact checker found, his position is different from saying that Presidents can't ever be indicted. Professors like Noah Feldman at Harvard Law have agreed. The Fact Checker from the Washington Post concluded by calling these claims ``an extreme distortion'' of Judge Kavanaugh's views and I believe gave it two Pinocchios for being false and misleading. A third and final line of bogus arguments I want to address this afternoon hinges on his views regarding the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called ObamaCare, with the senior Senator from Massachusetts saying that he is ``hostile to healthcare.'' That is as preposterous as saying he is hostile to women. Who is hostile to healthcare? Well, that was also fact-checked by the New York Times, which found hers and other claims to be highly exaggerated. The reality is that Judge Kavanaugh, in his official capacity, has issued two dissenting opinions and legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, both highly technical in nature. Clearly, he is not against healthcare. That is really just a dumb comment. He is simply a judge, who has no role in evaluating the wisdom or efficacy of policies. His job is to call balls and strikes, as an umpire would, to decide whether something is within the law or outside of the law. I believe he will continue to do that when confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court. I agree with the majority leader, Senator McConnell, who last week said Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications are ``so obvious, and his reputation so excellent, that unhinged attacks are all that remains in the far left's arsenal.'' I agree with him, but that doesn't mean we won't continue to hear these unhinged, ridiculous charges against a good man. Judge Kavanaugh, by all accounts, is a fair and thoughtful judge who approaches each judicial decision with precise reasoning and careful analysis. That is why the conspiracy theories will not work. They are doomed to fail, and the cracks are already beginning to show. As I said, the Judiciary Committee will conduct a thorough and timely hearing, and then we will follow with an up-or-down vote in the committee and then on the Senate floor this fall, prior to the time the Supreme Court's new term begins in October. The eventual outcome from this process should be that Judge Kavanaugh will be easily confirmed. That is what he and I believe the American people deserve. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, I had the chance to meet with the President's nominee to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, and I am pleased with the nominee the President has chosen. After talking to him yesterday morning, I look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever I can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. My conversation with Judge Kavanaugh refreshed my memory that we actually had met back in 2000 when I was attorney general of Texas and I was preparing to deliver an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court--something I had never done before. Thanks to Judge Kavanaugh, who wasn't a judge at the time, Paul Clement and Ted Olson--both of whom had been Solicitor General of the United States--helped me get prepared and do the best job I was capable of doing before the Court, providing me a moot court opportunity. So it was good to catch up with Judge Kavanaugh. I have followed Judge Kavanaugh's career closely. In the interim, obviously he has served as a circuit court judge on the DC Circuit Court. Some might call it the second most important court in the Nation, and that is primarily because it is located here in the District of Columbia, and most of the major cases involving administrative authority, Federal power, end up finding their way one way or the other through the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So he has had a great judicial career over the last 12 years and has written on a variety of topics. I would say he is a pretty well-known quantity. While you are going to hear a lot of demands for additional information--and I am all for as much transparency as can be provided, and Senators certainly have a right to get their hands on as much information as possible about the nominee and his qualifications, his background, and how he might perform as a Supreme Court Justice--I hope this doesn't turn into a delay-of-game tactic. He has had a long career in the government. He worked at the White House as Staff Secretary, which, for those who aren't familiar with that, means he was the last person who saw a piece of paper before it was presented to the President for signature. That doesn't mean he was the publisher or the author of that paper, and many times it was really to make sure that it was correct, that it was accurate, that it had been verified and authenticated, but he was the one who decided to turn it over to the President for the President to sign, and it could have been major matters or minor matters. But I hope we don't get to a point where people say that every document or email that he happens to have been copied on or have seen somehow becomes essential for a Senator before they can decide whether to support his confirmation. I would add that some Senators have come out and announced their opposition to the nominee before he was even announced. I think our friend from Pennsylvania did that--in other words, announced his opposition to anybody this President might nominate to fill the vacancy left by Anthony Kennedy. So I hope we don't hear from people like that, that now they need more information so they can make a decision. They have already made their decision, and it really is just a waste of everybody's time and really an insult to the rest of the Senators who are doing their due diligence and trying to perform their constitutional responsibilities when it comes to providing advice and consent on a nominee to the highest Court in the country. Many people are familiar with the arc of Judge Kavanaugh's career, but let me mention a few things, lest they be lost in all of the noise here in Washington. Of course, he graduated with honors from Yale College and attended Yale Law School--two of the elite universities and law schools in the country. He clerked for two Federal appellate judges before Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. As the Presiding Officer knows, those are the types of jobs that are highly competitive, and only the best of the best get asked to serve as law clerks to Federal appellate judges and certainly to the Supreme Court. Then he went on to work in private practice, in the White House Counsel's office thereafter, and finally as Staff Secretary, which I mentioned a few minutes ago, before being confirmed to the Federal bench in Washington. I want to step back for a moment because in the weeks ahead, we are going to have plenty of time to talk about his credentials, his experience, and his decisions, and we will have plenty of time to parse all of the dissents, the concurrences, the majority opinions he has written on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but I think it is also important to know the man, to know the person, because unfortunately, Washington, DC, has a way of chewing up people, and their personality and their humanity become separated from the political basis or ideological basis upon which people may oppose them. So I think it is important to know the qualities of this man because it informs us about his character, which I hope we would all agree is an important element in the qualifications of a Federal judge. Judge Kavanaugh is one who is active in his community, as we heard on the night the announcement his nomination was made. He is known as Coach K on his daughter's basketball team and acts as a lector at his church. He serves meals to needy families on a regular basis and tutors children at local elementary schools. Frankly, I don't know where he finds the time to do all those things while serving as a member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. One friend called him a regular old ``carpool dad.'' I think we all know what that is; it is a dad who drives the kids to school. That comment was reported in the Washington Post. This friend wrote that those who know Judge Kavanaugh' character would render a ``unanimous verdict in his favor.'' Judge Kavanaugh is the former captain of his high school basketball team. He has run the Boston Marathon--something I aspire to do. I just made it through a half-marathon years ago but never a full marathon, much less the Boston Marathon. He has won his court's annual 5K race five times. As a matter of fact, I have seen him year after year over in Anacostia when we have a race for charity that many of our Senate offices participate in, along with the press and the Federal agencies, including the courts. I believe I have seen him run in those 5K races with his team. Professionally, Judge Kavanaugh is known as a distinguished legal professional, but it is important to know that even amidst the hustle and bustle of a high-powered legal career, he found time to do a lot of very important things. While in private practice, for example, he was head of a practice group devoted to protecting religious liberties. You don't earn a big fee as a lawyer by advocating in cases involving religious liberties. Typically, these are cases where you volunteer your time because you believe in the right of the citizen to have their case heard by the courts. Particularly when it comes to religious liberties, Judge Kavanaugh's record is crystal clear. He has advocated on behalf of those--regardless of their ability to pay--whose religious liberties were at risk. He also wrote two briefs for the Supreme Court of the United States supporting the cause of religious liberty, including the case I mentioned earlier that I argued in the Supreme Court involving the Santa Fe Independent School District, which was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union to prevent them from allowing a student to volunteer their time to offer an inspirational saying or a prayer before a football game in Texas. He authored an amicus brief in support of that case. When he is not volunteering for causes he believes in, he is the father of two daughters--something near to my heart, and I know the Presiding Officer has two daughters as well. He has been a mentor to many law students whom he has taught over the years. His colleague, Jack Goldsmith, a distinguished lawyer in his own right at Harvard, described him as having ``many, many considerable strengths as a judge and potential Justice, and [also] as a person.'' His former professor, Akhil Amar, who supported Hillary Clinton in the last election, wrote in the New York Times a couple of days ago that Judge Kavanaugh is a ``superb nominee'' who has ``already shown flashes of greatness.'' I believe the headline of that op-ed piece by Professor Amar talked about the liberal case for Brett Kavanaugh, and I appreciate his willingness to talk about the man and his professional credentials and not get bogged down in the polarized politics of judicial confirmations here in Washington. He called the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh President Trump's ``finest hour, his classiest move.'' That is pretty impressive. These are just a few of the reasons why here in the Senate we need to now move forward confidently and deliberately with the confirmation process. We will proceed thoroughly but with expedition. It is, after all, our constitutional role--now the President has discharged his constitutional role--to offer advice and consent on the President's nominee. I believe the President has chosen wisely, just as he did when he chose Neil Gorsuch for the vacancy created by the unfortunate death of Justice Scalia. The President has chosen well again, and I believe this nominee is deserving of this high honor to serve on our Nation's highest Court. There are some who said that we need to wait or that there is not enough time before the midterm election to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Well, that is a pretty transparent stalling tactic. Justice Kennedy said he is vacating the Bench at the end of this month, so when the Supreme Court reconvenes on October 1--I believe it is the first Monday in October--it would be good to have that vacancy left by the retirement of Judge Kennedy filled with this nominee. So the idea that we can somehow put this off until after the midterm elections I think makes no sense, or if it makes sense, it makes sense only from the standpoint of stalling the confirmation process. I agree with the senior Senator from Connecticut, who said recently that the Senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next Justice. I agree with him. Since Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor were confirmed just 66 days from the time they were nominated, a similar amount of time should not be unreasonable for Judge Kavanaugh. I am not suggesting it be exactly 66 days; it might be a few days earlier or a few days later. But just to sort of orient everybody as to the timeframe we are talking about, if it were 66 days, like Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor, that would mean we would vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh on September 13, if my math is correct. Well, we know that these judicial nominations--particularly for the Supreme Court of the United States--are hotly contested, and that is because on the left, they see the Court as an end run around the democratic process. In other words, what you can't win in an election and what you can't win in a debate and vote of Congress, well, if you can get the Court to do it--unelected, lifetime-appointed judges--then you have basically won in advancing your policy position at the Federal level. I would say that the opposite philosophy is one that was embraced by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who viewed the courts as what they called the least dangerous branch because they viewed the courts as not being political and judges as being impartial arbiters of the law and letting the chips fall where they may. But on the left, if they can't achieve their desired policy outcomes through the normal legislative process, well, doing it by lawsuit and by court decision becomes the means to their end. That is why they are so upset, I think, about this President's nominee. He is what I would call a traditional judge in the James Madison, Alexander Hamilton mold--someone who believes that judges have a very important job in our government, but it is a limited job and role. In other words, the main responsibility for making public policy should fall on the shoulders of Members of Congress and the President because we stand for election. If people don't like what we are doing, they can knock on our door and say: Senator, we don't like what you are doing. We want you to change your vote or your point of view. That is entirely appropriate. If we don't, they reserve the time- honored right to throw the rascals out. You can't do that for a Federal judge. That is why their role under the Constitution is circumscribed as interpreting the law and applying the facts to settled law. I understand why our friends across the aisle are disappointed. They were hoping that President Hillary Clinton would be filling this vacancy, and they were hoping that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would be the one guiding that nomination through the Senate. Instead, they were disappointed--I understand it; it is a normal human reaction--that President Trump won, so he is the one making the nomination, and a Republican Senate, led by Majority Leader McConnell, is the one guiding this nomination through. I can understand their disappointment. It is no reason to drag your feet or obstruct an orderly and thoughtful deliberative process when it comes to filling this vacancy. We are going to have a chance to talk about this topic a lot in the coming weeks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night the President of the United States announced that Brett Kavanaugh is his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the impending retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. I was glad to have the occasion to join the President and others at the White House last night, and I could not be more pleased with the President's choice. Now that the President has performed his duty under the Constitution, it now falls to us to do our duty. The appointments clause to the U.S. Constitution says that subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the President shall appoint members of the Supreme Court, among other officials. The President has done his job, and now it falls to the U.S. Senate to do our job under the Constitution of the United States. We have all learned a little bit more about the nominee in just the few hours since his nomination. Of course, we know he is a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit--what some have called the second highest court in the land. By that, they mean that because it sits in the District of Columbia, many important cases involving the U.S. Government go up through that court as opposed to courts in Texas or Indiana or other places around the country. For more than 10 years, he has served in that capacity. We know he has had a distinguished academic and legal career. He graduated from an elite law school--Yale--and clerked for Justice Kennedy himself, the man he will succeed when confirmed. Most importantly and as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's good judgment, he made the wise decision to marry a Texan. His wife grew up in Abilene and graduated from the University of Texas. Now that the nomination has been made, the Senate will follow what we refer to here as regular order. That means the Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Grassley, will thoroughly vet the nominee, and then the committee will debate and vote on the nomination, and then the nomination will come to the floor of the Senate, where we will debate and vote on the nomination. We have already heard some say that there is not enough time to carry out this process before the midterm elections, which should raise all of our antennae. Both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated, so the truth is that we have plenty of time to do our job under the Constitution. We do want to be thorough, and we will, but we also owe it to the Court and to the American people to move expeditiously to fill this post so as not to leave it vacant. Justice Kennedy said that he intends to leave at the end of the month. As the senior Democratic Senator from Kentucky said recently, ``The Senate should do nothing to artificially delay consideration of the next Justice.'' I agree with him, and that is consistent with the standard here in the Senate. Some have said: Well, we have a midterm election coming up, and maybe we ought to defer filling the vacancy. But I would note that in 2010, leading up to a midterm election, just like this year, Senate Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the Court, Elena Kagan. So there is plenty of precedent for moving expeditiously, thoroughly, not recklessly but in a focused fashion to confirm this nomination once it has been vetted and voted on. It is no secret that Judge Kavanaugh will help decide cases that will be important in the life of our Nation. That is the role of the Supreme Court, and it is already clear from his previous experience that he has had plenty of preparation--academically and work experience and life experience--that has prepared him to do exactly that. Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated the intellectual capacity that we would expect of a Supreme Court Justice, and over the years, he has demonstrated a rigorous understanding of the law. He has demonstrated his sharp mind and analytical skills in a variety of jobs--working in the White House as a lawyer and as Staff Secretary to the President. By the way, for those who don't know what a Staff Secretary does in the White House, that is the person who has the final eyes on a document before the President is presented something for his signature. It is a very, very important job. Brett Kavanaugh was Staff Secretary to the President of the United States during the term of office of President George W. Bush. He has also taught at law schools, such as Harvard, where he was actually hired by now-Justice Elena Kagan, whom he would serve alongside, as well as Georgetown and Yale. We know that during the years he has been on the appellate bench, he has handed down hundreds of decisions. Let's not forget that in order to attain that important position, the Senate already confirmed him once in 2006 by a vote of 57 to 36. We all know that this is President Trump's second nomination to the Supreme Court, after that of Justice Neil Gorsuch just last year. In his first term on the Court, Justice Gorsuch has already demonstrated the power of his pen, the clarity of his thought, and the force of his legal reasoning, and I am sure that Justice Scalia would be proud of his successor's impartiality, his rigor, and his self-discipline. Based on his distinguished record, I think Judge Kavanaugh will display many of the attributes Justice Gorsuch has displayed on the Supreme Court. In the coming weeks, we will hear a lot about Judge Kavanaugh's interesting life story, his long career as a dedicated public servant, his service to his community, and, yes, his strong Catholic faith, but at the end of the day, the decisions of the Supreme Court should not be affected by personal agendas, political or otherwise. That is because the interpretation of the law is a discipline unto itself, and it should always be separated from the personalities, the preferences, or the ideological or political agenda of the judge. That is what judges do. If they can't do it, then they shouldn't serve as judges. Justices, by their work, must be insulated from the day-to-day politics that are all too common here in the Congress. The Court, of course, should not be a partisan or political institution. It was created by the Founders to be something apart from the political branches of government, the executive and legislative branches. That is because the political branches of the government run for election and are held accountable by the voters--not so with judges who serve for a life term. I know President Obama once argued in favor of what he called an empathy standard in judicial decision-making, but that is not my standard, and I know it is not Judge Kavanaugh's standard either. It is another way to call for results-oriented judging, which is the opposite of what a good judge should do. As a former judge and justice of the Texas Supreme Court, I believe those who serve in the judicial branch must put their personal beliefs aside and apply the law as written and faithfully interpret those laws passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, as well as interpreting the text of the Constitution. If they want to be policymakers, they ought to run for Congress. They ought to be subject to the vote of the electorate. They ought to run for school board. They ought to run for city council. If you want to be a judge, you have to take an oath to do something different from serving in those sorts of political offices. It is crucial that as this process begins to unfold, we remember that. It is important that the President's nominee not be subjected to personal attacks from the angry and unhinged element we have seen already reflected on our TV screens and that at times seems to forget that judges in our political system are not charged with making the law or making policy but rather interpreting the law and the Constitution and the laws written by the Congress and signed by the President. Based on what we have seen so far, the confirmation process will no doubt be contentious. We have seen activists already encourage Members of the Senate to abandon civility and decorum, and I hope we resist. We have seen some of our colleagues already engage in various publicity activities and talk about battle lines being drawn, as if this is some sort of war to be fought. They indicated their unwavering opposition to the President's nominee before we even knew who the nominee might be. One of our colleagues came to the floor of the Senate before the nomination was announced and said he would oppose whomever President Trump were to nominate. Well, that should tell us a lot--that it is not about the individual, it is about the office, and it is about kowtowing to a political base that demands opposition at all costs and at all turns to anything this President might do, no matter how qualified the nominee might be. In the days ahead, I think we can predict from experience that these attacks will continue. Some of our colleagues will demand that Judge Kavanaugh reveal how he will rule in a particular case in exchange for their vote. How corrupt would that be, to insist that the judge tell you ahead of time how he would rule in a particular case in exchange for a vote for confirmation? That would clearly be wrong. It would be wrong for any judge, without hearing the case--the arguments of the lawyers, the facts of the case--to prejudge an outcome. That, again, is not what judges do. They don't run for office based on a political platform as do the political branches of government. Those of us who run for office for the Senate or the House are happy to talk about what we believe in and what we would do if elected to office, but that is not what judges are supposed to do. What is more, there is clear precedent for resisting those sorts of guarantees ahead of time. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during her own confirmation process that sort of assurance is completely inappropriate. Justice Ginsburg gave what I think is the correct response to such requests, saying she would offer no hints, no forecasts, no previews of her rulings. Trying to predict how ethical Justices will decide particular cases is a futile endeavor because, for good judges, it depends on learning the facts as well as entertaining the legal arguments by the lawyers involved, not coming into it with a preconceived notion of how you would rule in any case under any facts involving a particular topic. Sure, hypotheticals can be dreamed up, but no judge knows the right decision until he or she studies the case before them. I can tell my colleagues, we relish the opportunity to support and defend the President's nominee against any and all baseless attacks. We will not back down. We will not surrender the field to those who make unjustified criticisms of the nominee or attribute to him some characteristic or some experience which is entirely false. We will defend the record of Judge Kavanaugh, who I believe is a thoughtful and willing public servant, against deliberate attacks to denigrate him. We will not allow others to distort the nature of his previous judicial decisions or use him as a sacrificial lamb in some sort of vengeance campaign against this President. We pledged that same level of support for Justice Gorsuch, and we showed we were able to do just that--defend the President's nominee against unjustified attacks--and will do so again, joined by Judge Kavanaugh's many other supporters, including those who do not share his political or judicial philosophy. I noted today a liberal law professor, Akhil Amar, who wrote an opinion piece saying that, yes, even liberals should support this nominee, and he gives his reasons why. You can read it for yourself in the New York Times, but the stakes are simply too important to let unfair and inaccurate accusations be made about the nominee without correcting them. The American people deserve better. This nominee deserves better. The American people demand judges like Brett Kavanaugh, who are fair and independent arbiters of the law. The basic problem is, in recent years, some have viewed the court as a way to circumvent and evade the political process and achieve their preferred policy outcomes when judges pronounce some radical change in the law or public policy from the bench without the chance for voters to vote on that individual or on those policies. Many have come to see this as an end-run around the normal political process. Those who can't win at the ballot box, well, let's win on the court, but that is not the right philosophy. That is not the one preferred by most Americans, nor shared by the Founding Fathers of this country or evidenced in the Constitution. During the first 18 months of this administration, President Trump has nominated, and we have confirmed, 42 members of the Federal judiciary, including Justice Gorsuch. Next on our list is Judge Kavanaugh. So we look forward to doing our duty under the Constitution to vet the nominee, to ask the tough questions, to have the debate and then the vote in the Judiciary Committee, and then bring that nominee to the floor of the Senate and have that debate and that vote here. Vote we will this fall on this nominee, and I trust we will keep the same sort of timeframe we have seen applied impartially in cases like Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Gorsuch. There is no reason to drag this out other than for partisan, political purposes. So let's do our job. Let's be dignified about it. Let's not engage in unnecessary name-calling or falsely attribute to the nominee beliefs he does not have or make wild, unhinged predictions about what may happen to the Supreme Court were he to be confirmed. I look forward to confirming this new equally outstanding nominee this fall. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).