quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise to speak about judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, and i urge my colleagues to actually listen to dr. blasey ford and treat her with the respect that she deserves. she deserves better than the setup she's walking into tomorrow. i want to take a step back for a second and look at the big picture of what's actually going on with this nomination. we have a nominee for a lifetime

appointment to the highest court in the land who has been accused credibly of sexual assault. dr. blasey ford reluctantly came forward out of civic duty and said that brett kavanaugh tried to rape her in high school. she is now facing death threats for her courage, and her worst fears of how she would be treated by this body have come to fruition. another woman, dreb are a ramirez -- debra ramirez agreed to tell her story after being contacted by a reporter, again risking her career and her safety, and said that brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her face in college while laughing as part of a game. these accusations are disturbing enough by themselves, but the

response to these allegations by our colleagues are so disappointing. take a look at how dr. blasey ford is being bullied because she told her story. listen to how she's being patronized and dismissed by some members of the judiciary committee. look at how our president belittled and demeaned dr. blasey ford and ms. ramirez, reminding us once again that he has been credibly accused of committing sexual assault himself and denigrates not just women who accuse him but survivors everywhere. that's not all. the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee tweeted after dr. blasey ford's sexual assault allegation, quote, unfazed and determined, we will confirm judge kavanaugh. and according to ms. ramirez'

law, the judiciary committee isn't even interested in taking her claim seriously or getting information from her about her claims. instead of getting the facts, instead of even wanting the facts, they tried to dismiss this as a smear campaign and plow right ahead. for anyone who has ever wondered why so many survivors of sexual assault don't come forward, obviously there's trauma. but there's also the fear of this very kind of retaliation and scorn. mr. president, the question i have, that i know you have, do we value women in this country? do we value women in this country? do we listen to women when they tell us about sexual trauma?

do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? do we take their claims seriously? or do we just disbelieve them as a matter of course? i want to echo the words of my colleague from alaska, this is, quote, about whether women -- no. whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point of her life is to be believed. i believe dr. blasey ford. here's why i believe her. she's risked everything, her own safety, to come out on the record to say brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. she told her therapist and her husband about it five years ago. she told a friend about it a year ago. she told a reporter about it before kavanaugh was ever named. she's even taken a lie detector

test. so why are my colleagues moving so fast, as fast as they possibly can to confirm this judge? this process is sending the worst possible message to girls and boys everywhere. it's telling american women that your voice doesn't matter. it's telling survivors everywhere that your experiences don't count, they are not important, and they are not to be believed. we are saying that women are worth less than a man's promotion. that's not how the world is in 2018, and we cannot allow this senate, this body to bring us back to before 1991.

and to those who i hearsay over and over -- i hear say over and over this isn't fair to judge kavanaugh, he's entitled to due process, what about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? dr. blasey ford has to prove her case beyond a c doubt. this is not a court. he's not entitled to knows because we're not actually seeking to convict him or put him in jail. we are seeking the truth. we are seeking facts, we are seeking just what happened. we, senators, not staff members, not female lawyers, we, senator, are being asked to assess his honesty? is he an honest person? is he trustworthy?

can we trust him? to do the right thing for decades, rule our womens' lives for decades to come. can we trust him to do that right? this is not about whether or not he should be convicted, this is about whether he was the -- he has the privilege -- the privilege to serve on the highest court of the land for a lifetime. this is not a court of law. this is a job interview. it is our job as senators to assess if he is honest. has he lied about his past? has he misled members of the judiciary committee? is he trustworthy? one point that i think our colleagues are somewhat blind to, which i know, mr. president, you are not.

the last two weeks have been so painful for women who have experienced sexual trauma. women have lived through this, and when they are watching some of the most powerful people in this country disregard, distrust, disbelieve, minimize, devalue. unfortunately, it's painful for all of them. it's painful because you're tired of seeing the same old outcome every single time. you're tired of the scenario where the men are believed and the women are not. they can't believe their eyes when they see two women being treated with less respect and with less of a process in than even anita hill received.

i want to quote a friend of mine, amena su who said that she is a survivor and her words are the way many people feel. quote, the truth is our strength. we are each other's strengths. to the women who are struggling, i see you. i'm sorry we have to go through this. thank you for trusting us with your stories. i'm heartened by them and honored to know about you. mr. president, i believe dr. blasey ford because she's risking everything, her safety, her security, her reputation,

her career to tell this story at this moment for all the right reasons. if we allow women's experiences of sexual trauma to be second to a man's promotion, it will not only diminish this watershed of societal change we are in, it will bring shame on this body and on the court. i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we are not in a quorum call, correct? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. cornyn: i have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by the majority and minority leaders.

the presiding officer: duly noted. corn con mr. president, as a member of the senate judiciary committee, i am looking forward to a hearing that we will have tomorrow at 10:00 in the morning at the request of dr. ford to give all of us an opportunity to provide a fair -- and a fair chance to her for her to have her say. it's important that we do this because during the last ten days it's felt like a series of small earthquakes, actions taken and blunders committed by our democratic colleagues has destabilized the normal timeline. this stems from the fact that the allegations made by dr. ford were made to the ranking member and kept by her from other members of the committee as well as the background investigators who normally when allegations

come up like this are protective of the confidentiality and anonymity of the accuser and accused until they can be properly vetted. but that all went by the wayside when our friend from california, senator feinstein, sat on this letter, this accusation. so we are where we are. but, as a result of the unfairness to both the accuser and the accused, because of the secrets they kept, because of the ways this were leaked to the press, and the pledgeses of -- pledges of confidentiality that were violated, we know that the nominee, judge kavanaugh, who's had six f.b.i. background checks in the course of his professional career, that he has been subject to multiple accusations that could and should have been brought up much earlier. as i say, if it had been handled during the normal conventional

process, it would have protected dr. ford, it would have protected the nominee from this circus-like atmosphere, and we could have gotten to the bottom of the allegation. we could have hopefully ascertained where the truth lies. but under this approach created, again, by this failure to release the information so it can -- it could be investigated until after the hearing, under this current situation, i think everybody loses. i think we all recognize the basic unfairness of this process both to dr. ford and to judge kavanaugh, and it did not have to be this way. the process, as i say, has been patently unfair. that's why my colleagues and i have been insisting on a better way forward by returning to the process that is fair to all concerned. fairness in the dictionary

definition is defined as the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is right and reasonable. another definition of impartial and just treatment -- impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination. so how are we to handle this accusation and this challenging difference of position on the part of dr. ford, who said 36 years ago this attempted sexual assault occurred, and judge kavanaugh, who stated under oath, that no such thing happened. how do we get to the bottom of this? well, the biggest challenge we have is time because i defy any one of us to try to reconstruct what we were doing on appear given day at a given -- on a

given day at a given time 36 years ago. it is impossible to reconstruct with complete fidelity and accuracy. so we are trying to provide a fair process for dr. ford under these unfortunate circumstances to tell her story but we also need to provide a fair process to the nominee. this should not be a precedent for how future nominations are handled. this should be -- we should learn from this terrible experience and commit to doing better. but one way to do better would be to return to our basic values and principles in our government and in our country under our constitution, which guarantees the rights of a person accused of a crime. i know the minority leader, my friend from new york, senator schumer, has said, judge kavanaugh, this is not a court,

this is a nomination, which i presume from that he means, well, anything goes and there are no rules. well, he has been accused of a crime, of attempted sexual assault, and he has testified under oath under penalty of perjury that no such thing happened. so this is a very serious matter and we need to take it seriously and not create a new framework out of thin air which says somehow if somebody makes an accusation that cannot be corroborated by anybody else 36 years later, that somehow satisfies our notions of due process and protecting the rights of people who are accused of crimes. this is fundamentally about fairness. people accused of grave misconduct have a right of due process under our constitution. they have a right to know who their accusers are as well as

the nature of the charges being brought against them and the evidence that will be presented against them. those are basic constitutional american rights consistent with our idea of what the government's burden should be when the government is trying to deny us our right to liberty or property or even our life. we also know that these rights include a right to speedy proceedings without unnecessary delays, and, unfortunately, there have been plenty of delays for judge kavanaugh. last week we saw chairman grassley patiently wait and wait and wait some more while the legal team and political operatives representing dr. ford strung the committee along. i'm sure judge kavanaugh is wondering what in the heck is going on here. as we all heard in a televised

interview monday night, he unequivocally denies the claims made against him. again, that is a serious statement because he does so under penalties of perjury. he said, i know what is the truth and the truth is i've never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. those are strong words and direct words and they remind us of something important. it's the truth that the judiciary committee and the entire country, what we should be after, the truth. but for the truth to be our goal this week, some of my colleagues need to dial down the rhetoric and quit presuming guilt based on an accusation and nothing else. at a minimum, a fair process requires an impartial and open mind on the part of those charged with determining a person's professional fate. my fellow senators need to

remain open to receiving and evaluating credible evidence presented at the hearing. unfortunately for our democratic colleagues, that ship has sailed long before dr. ford's allegations were leaked to the press and made public, contrary to her wishes, all of our colleagues on the senate judiciary committee on the other side of the aisle had said they would vote against this nomination. so judge kavanaugh hardly has an open, impartial tribunal deciding his professional fate and whether this accusation will remain a stain on his professional career and reputation for the rest of his life. then as i said, there's also the presumption of innocence. the supreme court has said the law presumes that persons are innocent until they're proven guilt by -- guilty by competent evidence. this is a fundamental bedrock of our constitutional system.

it is nonnegotiable. it cannot be conveniently brushed away by our colleagues across the aisle. it's not one of several options. rather it is guaranteed under our constitution. the burden of proof is always on the party alleging wrongdoing, not the other way around. we have the logical conundrum as well beyond the constitutional one where dr. ford has testified at least in the letter as to an event occurring. judge kavanaugh said it didn't happen. i didn't do that. i wasn't there. so how in the world unless the burden is on the person making the accusation, how in the world could the person defending possibly prove a negative when he says it didn't happen. i wasn't there.

it's impossible. and that would be a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. that would turn our constitution on its head. that's why it's so important for us to hear from dr. ford, evaluate the strength of not just the allegations but what corroboration, what other evidence there is in order to be able to find the truth. we've learned from media reports that attorneys for dr. ford have affidavits of additional people that know the accuser personally. but these simply, according to "u.s.a. today," indicates that these are things that dr. ford told her friends 20, 30 years later, not witnesses of the event that she claims occurred 35, 36 years ago. let's remember, too, that three other eyewitnesses that ms. ford

identified say they have absolutely no recollection over the events that she says took place, none whatsoever. these are people that dr. ford identified as witnesses to the assault that she claims judge kavanaugh perpetrated. yet the witnesses she identifies said they have no knowledge of such an event. we also need to remember the context in which all of this is occurring. 65 women who went to high school with judge kavanaugh have written a letter saying he has always behaved honorably toward them and treated them with respect. but that doesn't mean that dr. ford's not entitled to be heard. quite the contrary. she has a story to tell. and as the father of two daughters myself, i want to hear that story. i want to compare it to judge

kavanaugh's unequivocal denial and judge for myself the reliability of each. as a former judge myself for 13 years and attorney general for four, i feel that doing anything less would be shirking my duty. we owe dr. ford our time, our attention, and our best efforts at discerning the truth. that means her claims will be tested, examined, and new information perhaps will be brought to light, at least that's my hope. that's the way it should be, trying to clean up the mess created by this unconventional process of leaking allegations after the background check is completed, after the hearing occurs to members of the press rather than handling it the way that, as i said, it should be. we should have started with that process, not end it here. what the majority leader described yesterday as a disturbing pattern should never

have taken place over the last few weeks. our colleagues across the aisle catching wind of an allegation, then refusing to share it with the majority and instead they waited and then made sure that it was leaked to the press at the most politically opportune time. and when it was likely to cause the maximum disruption and embarrassment to both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh, they leaked the allegations to the press. that is no way, madam president, for the united states senate to do its business. a search for the truth, if that in fact is what we are involved with, and i hope it is, it should not involve delays and the with holding of documents. it shouldn't involve orchestrated personal attacks on members either. it should not involve a mob rule like we saw at the first kavanaugh hearing. it should not involve people sending coat hangers to offices or forcing committee members to leave restaurants harassing them

when they're trying to have dinner with their family. people who hold a genuine concern for dr. ford would have honored requests for anonymity and privacy. that's what dr. ford specifically requested. they would have passed on those allegations to the judiciary committee so an investigation could have been conducted in a more timely and confidential fashion. and then they could be addressed during the hearing if necessary that we had earlier this month. that standard procedure would have treated ms. ford as a real person, not as a political pawn. and it would have left the democratic operatives who have now been hired to dig up dirt out of the mix. i want to say that chairman grassley throughout all of this has been exceedingly generous toward dr. ford as we would all want him to be.

even when his patience has been tested. and i want to commend him once again because he has had a very difficult job trying to run the judiciary committee, trying to be fair to the nominee and the accuser alike, when this wrench thrown into the spokes of the committee operation has created more of a circus-like atmosphere than it has the sort of deliberative process in search for the truth and testing the background of a nominee, which is something all nominees deserve. no nominee deserves to be dragged through the mud like this. chairman grassley has been patient because he knows how important this is, how much is on the line not only for the supreme court but also for women across this country who see a little bit of themselves in dr. ford and want to make sure her voice like theirs is always

heard. over the last year we've been in the middle of an important national conversation on the topic of sexual assault and the way men have treated women. i, as i said myself, have two daughters. as i mentioned earlier, almost every -- every american has a mother. some are lucky and have a sister or a spouse or a daughter. and i think all of us would want to make sure that all of those women in our lives would be treated with dignity and respect were they in the same position that dr. ford now finds herself in. but it's also important to remember that every person has a father. many are fortunate to have brothers or sons and husbands, and we would want to make sure all of those men are also treated with respect and fairly.

they would -- we would no rather have a woman's truth be ignored than an uncorroborated accusation against a man be honored. that's fairness. dr. ford as we know is a real person and so is judge kavanaugh, flesh and blood. each of them should be treated with fairness and with dignity and respect. it's not just one or the other which is the false choice that many of our colleagues have suggested. we can't pick one and dismiss the other outright and claim any fairness or allegiance to our constitutional system and due process of law if we do otherwise. as michael girst, the columnist for "the washington post" reminded us earlier this week, somewhere along the way this process devolved into one that is no longer about just winning arguments but about demonizing

and destroying other people. it's not about winning arguments. it's not about winning elections. it's not about winning votes here in the senate. this process is devolved into character assassination and destroying the reputation and lives of real people. it's not too late to change that. it's -- this all calls to mind the famous line by joseph welch, a lawyer, during the mccarthy hearings when he said, at long last have we no sense of decency? well, i think we still do. and i hope republicans and democrats will prove that we have a sense of deas si and -- decency and fairness as we approach the hearing. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i also ask, madam president, to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you. madam president, i rise today to urge the senate to pass the special counsel independence and integrity act. this is a bill that not many americans have heard about yet but it's a critically important bill for the senate to pass and very important for the country. this bill will preserve the justice department's independent

investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. since this weekend, there have been reports that the president may fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein from his position at the department of justice. this would be a gross abuse of power, a line that we cannot allow to be crossed without consequence. mr. rosenstein has a long career in public service and law enforcement. he initially joined the department of justice nearly 30 years ago through the attorney general's honors program and rose through the ranks, serving as a trial attorney, as principal deputy assistant attorney general for the tax division, and as a united states attorney in maryland for over a decade, a critically important job in our justice system. as deputy attorney general,

mr. rosenstein has overseen the russia investigation led by special counsel robert mueller which has secured indictments or guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies, including russian individuals and companies as well as former trump campaign manager paul manafort, deputy campaign manager rick gates, and other campaign advisors, including george papadopoulos and michael flynn. earlier this month, mr. manafort pleaded guilty to, quote, conspiracy against the united states, unquote. mr. rosenstein has played an integral role in ensuring that the mueller investigation can continue without interference. unfortunately, this work in mr. rosenstein's long and distinguished service at the department of justice could come to an end if he is fired by the

president. from day one, president trump has systematically worked to obstruct special counsel mueller's investigation into russia's attack on our nation. he's attempted to fire, to demand loyalty of, and to interfere with any official with oversight of this matter. just by way of example, this is a president who has fired the director of the f.b.i. and later admitted in a television interview that he had done so with the russia investigation in mind. this is a president who has repeatedly attacked the very attorney general that he nominated, suggesting that the department of justice should do his political bidding. this is a president who has impugned the impartiality and the motives of judges who have

ruled against his policies. and this is a president who has continued to call the mueller investigation a, quote, witch hunt, unquote, despite the fact that it has already produced dozens of indictments and guilty pleas. in short, this is a president that believes that the department of justice owes a duty of loyalty to him and him alone. our justice department officials have a duty to serve the american people and only the american people. they swear to uphold the constitution, not to genuflect to this president or any president. deputy attorney general rosenstein has upheld his duty to the country and our constitution. if the president fires him, it will be yet another blatant attempt to derail the mueller investigation and it could very well be successful.

rod rosenstein supervises the russia investigation, overseeing the work of special counsel mueller and his team. he receives status reports, establishes the investigation's budget, and according to special counsel regulations has the power to, quote, determine whether the investigation should continue, unquote. he, therefore, plays an integral role in ensuring that the independent investigation can continue to seek answers on russia's interference in the 2016 election. if mr. rosenstein were fired, it could compromise the mueller investigation in ways the public can see and in ways we may never know, through warrants that are never approved or resorrieses that are divert -- or resources that are diverted to other projects. this would be a decision by the president that would put us into pun chartered waters. it is, therefore, more important

than ever that congress step up and exercise the oversight that the american people expect us -- expect from us, and i had said say especially here in the senate. since president trump entered of course, the republican majority has not discharged its duty to act as an independent check on the executive branch and on the president himself. the majority cannot abdicate its responsibility any longer if rosenstein were to be fired. congress has a solemn obligation to act immediately -- immediately -- to protect special counsel mueller's investigation and prevent any more interference from this administration. senators in both parties have a duty to the american people to step up as a coequal branch of government and ensure that the special counsel's independent investigation remains just that

-- independent. for public officials and institutions with nothing to hide, an investigation which is vice president is not, quote, a hitch hunt, unquote. it is a chance for vindication, a chance to prove that our institutions and the individuals who serve them are truly worthy of the public's trust. at a time when the american people's confidence in our institution is low, very low, and when suspicion of wrongdoing is high, it's all the more important that the 2016 election activities of russia, as well as the trump campaign, be open for review. and as the voice of the american people, we in the senate must ensure that the investigation both continues and remains, in fact, independent. the legislation to protect the mueller investigation, the

special counsel independence and integrity act, is ready for a vote by the full senate at any time, if the majority leader would permit us to do that. it is a bipartisan bill that has been approved by a bipartisan majority of the judiciary committee. there is no excuse not to pass this legislation immediately. and day by day, each time the president attacks robert mueller or attacks rod rosenstein or the rule of law, we are presented with more evidence of why this legislation is needed. that is why i have again come to the floor to urge leader mcconnell to bring this bill up for a vote. it is far past time to put country over party. we must not forget that the special counsel is investigating an attack on our democracy by a foreign adversary.

as a matter of national security, the american people deserve answers about what happened during the 2016 election. we cannot allow anyone, including the president, to interfere with the investigation and prevent the american people from getting those answers to very important questions. madam president, i'd ask consent to have the remainder of my remarks appear in a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: just very briefly briefly, madam president, i wanted to just add a few comments with regard to the vote on judge kavanaugh that is now before the judiciary committee. we're told that tomorrow there will be testimony both from the judge and dr. ford, but i think the evidence that's on the record so far and then new evidence that's -- new allegations, i should say, that

are just breaking news at this hour, continue to reinforce my belief -- and this was my belief a week ago, it was my belief a number of days ago and it is still my belief today -- that this set of questions, these allegations warrant an f.b.i. investigation. this with a not be a new endeavor for the f.b.i. they do this routinely for nominees from the supreme court all the way down. they, of course, did an investigation for the purposes of this confirmation as to the judge's background. an investigation of these new allegations would simply be an update to the background check. it would be the completion of the background check. that's why this is not a monthslong or even weekslong investigation that could

transpire. i would hope that -- and there's still time to do this -- either today or even while we're -- while the judiciary committee is hearing testimony tomorrow that there would in fact be an investigation that might last a few days, and we can certainly take the time to do that. when you're talking about the confirmation of a justice on the most important court in the country and probably the most powerful court in the world, i'm sure we can take a few more days to complete a background check investigation. there is an inscription on the finance building in harrisburg, a building i worked in for a decade, and it has these inscriptions that talk about issues like public service and what our government should be about. and one of them, i think, applies to this circumstance, about whether or not there should be an investigation which would simply complete the background check on judge kavanaugh, which i think is both

necessary and reasonable and appropriate. here's what was inscribed in the 1930's on this government building in our state capital. quote -- open to every inspection, secure from every suspicion. open to every investigation, secure from every suspicion, unquote. and i think that -- those few words encapsulate what we're talking about here. i would hope that anyone, including judge kavanaugh, but anyone who supports his nomination and confirmation to the supreme court would want to have these allegations fully reviewed. and i know that the senate judiciary committee has staff that do investigations, and that's appropriate as well, staff on both sides. but i think we've reached a point whereby there's -- where there's such a divide here that it's hard to -- it's hard to be

confident about the fact that staffs on both sides could do a thorough investigation and cooperate to such a degree that it would be the equivalent of an f.b.i. background check. i think it's important that there be an independent investigation -- or, as i said before, and i'd say it again, the completion of a background check, not a new investigation but really an update of the existing background check. because i would they had that anyone would want that to be completed either prior to or even during the testimony tomorrow, which may give -- provide a foundation for additional testimony by additional witnesses to make sure is that we've reviewed every part of these allegations. i think that's fair to the judge and it's also fair to the confirmation process and of course fair to those who are making very troubling allegations. so if the senate judiciary

committee, in its review of his nomination, would be open to an investigation, i think that reduces the likelihood, as the saying goes, that there would be suspicion. and if that happened, i think the senate judiciary committee and the senate itself would be secure from every suspicion because there was a background check completed and a full investigation. madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: democratic leader, we are in a quorum call. mr. schumer: madam president,

i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, moments ago anothers serious allegation of sexual misconduct against judge kavanaugh was made public in a sworn affidavit. there are now multiple credible, serious and corroborated allegations against judge kavanaugh made under the penalty of perjury. the new affidavit by plaza swetnick -- by mrs. swetnick calls for a detailed investigation done by our f.b.i. professionals as do the allegations made by other women. but currently there is only a single hearing tomorrow, with no witnesses other than dr. ford and judge kavanaugh before a scheduled committee vote and a potential final senate floor vote soon thereafter. that is not right.

there is no need for such a rush. these women deserve to be heard in a fair way, and their claims must be properly investigated. republicans need to immediately suspend the proceedings related to judge kavanaugh's nomination, and the president must order the f.b.i. to reopen the background check investigation. i strongly believe judge kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration and the president should withdraw this nomination if kavanaugh won't do it voluntarily. if he will not, at the very at least the hearing and vote should be postponed while the f.b.i. investigates all of these very serious and very troubling allegations. if our republican colleagues

rush to proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the supreme court and the honor of our country. i yield the floor.

mr. heller: madam president secretary. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: thank you, madam president. it has been nearly a year since a madman's actions devastated vegas. 58 innocent people lost their lives. over 800 people were injured and many of them continue to face a long road to physical and emotional recovery. know that you're not alone on that road. we support you and we're praying for you. our community sl still grieving -- is still grieving and it will never be the same, but hatred and fear will never win, that's because one man's horrific actions exposed humanity. las vegas showed what it means to be vegas strong and i had the

honor of experiencing it firsthand in the eyes and voices of those who survived and those who are eager to help others. on that tragic night so many ordinary nevadans made the choice to be extra -- extraordinary. they took the shirts off their backs, and used their shirts to stop strangers from bleeding to death. some used festival barriers and others used their vehicles to transport the wounded to their hospital. a marine iraq war veteran mlgd to -- managed to escape the war. he found a vehicle and turned it into a make-shift ambulance. he ultimately drove around 30

injured people to the hospital. that night police officers also covered concert goers, shielded them from gunfire and directed them to safety. firefighters, paramedics and ambulance drivers who had never seen anything like, this plunged into danger to save lives without hesitation even though they were defenseless because, madam president, that's what they do. that week i had the privilege of meeting a las vegas police officer, sergeant jonathan realliedle. he was stationed a block from the shooting scene doing traffic control. after the shots were fired, he took off sprinting toward the hotel even though everyone else was running away from it. dozens of metro police officers, including officer tyler peterson who was on his second day of the job did the exact same thing. they rushed towards the firestorm to help in any way

they could and, of course, to save lives. when i visited the local hospitals, i was struck by the stories that doctors and nurses shared about concert goers who responded bravely and admirably. sorries about people who reacted to cowardly violence stood in the face of danger to protect a friend, family member or neighbor or someone they had never met. a doctor at the e.m.c. said that the patients showed exemplary courage. he told me he spoke to all the patients in the trauma room. some of them were strangers who accompanied the person who sustained injury while shielding them from bullets. he told me many of the patients in the emergency room that night said to the doctors, quote, that person is not seriously injured than i am, take care of them first, come back to me later. unquote. when i visited u.m.c., i had the opportunity to meet with one of the respiratory therapists who

attended the concert. she showed me the phone that had been shattered by a bullet. she had to pull the shardz out of her hand, bandaged it herself and rushed to the hospital to help people who said needed more help than she did i am so grateful to the staff at our hospitals whose composure and dedication saved one life after another. i am grateful to law enforcement and the first responders. each unit took and on all-hands on deck approach and everyone functioned as one team. instead of being frozen by their grief, the true leaders emerged. my friend who heads the las vegas metropolitan police department is one of them. many of the heroes didn't have a badge. instead, there were teachers, waiters, security guards, and

construction workers who assumed the responsibility to protect others. take the story of jack beaten, a man who's final act on earth was draping himself over his wife to protect her from deadly bullets. or john, a cab driver who accelerated towards the screams and chaos and drove a dozen people to safety. everyone banded together, local businesses throughout the state and country stood up to help. the south hall was dedicated to family reunification and support services, airlines provided free flights to families of victims, hotels and casinos across las vegas offered free rooms. lines of people were eager to give blood, twisted around las vegas. some waited in line seven hours. just a few hours after the injured concert goers flooded the hospitals in las vegas, the

red cross encouraged volunteer blood donations. they said that tragedy illustrates it's the blood in the shelves that help during the emergency. my wife and i led the masses who donated blood in las vegas. on monday last year, we will donate blood in recognition of this anniversary. members of my staff who want to give blood have committed to doing the same. while it may be just a small gesture, it's an important one because when the city of las vegas needed help, patients needed blood and the red cross was able to step in because the inventory was there. when i returned to washington, d.c., from las vegas, i immediately pursued every available option to provide relief for victims and their families as well as assistance for local law enforcement and emergency responders. from pressing the attorney general to make funding

available for victims and their families and securing funding to cover nevada's law enforcement overtime costs relating to the response of the shooting to leading to a bipartisan resolution recognizing the innocent lives that were lost, working with senator cortez-masto, i worked with this congress and this white house to deliver resources to nevada to try to help in any way we could. to help las vegas future attacks and to prevent them, i also spoke with the president on air force one. on our way out of nevada last obt about the critical role of federal funding to protect a city that welcomes over 40 million people annually. what is used for funding was updated and last year las vegas received nearly double the amount of federal funding compared to last year. i will never stop working to

ensure that nevada has the resources it needs to keep our communities safe. as president trump said, this attack was pure evil. he also said that the bonds between the people of the united states cannot be broken by violence and i, madam president, agree with him. we are all still in this together and together we will continue to move down the long road of recovery by honoring the memory of those lost and by holding on to the sense of compassion and community that emerged. i, like many others, could not only feel the strong sense of family, faith, and strength in the wake of october 1, i saw it firsthand. the immeasurable pain, suffering and devastation inflicted by one man elicited a profound response from a city of people who stood side by side during its darkest hour to protect a friend or a stranger that they had never met.

ronald reagan once said those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look. on october 1, and in the days that followed, the world witnessed a las vegas that may have not known, a place that has been further defined by the heroes that are among us, the ones who had sprung into action that night. that is truly the identity of las vegas. las vegas is resilient and we'll continue to be vegas strong. thank you, madam president.

mr. flake: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: madam president, i rise today to say a few words about the two human beings who will be providing extraordinarily important testimony before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow. dr. christine blasey ford and judge brett kavanaugh who will testify in that order. two human beings. it feels a bit odd in this political setting to specify their humanity. but we need to. and i admit it feels strange to

have to do that, but we in this political culture and in this city and in this building, even in this chamber we seem to sometimes forget that before this woman and this man are anything else, they are human beings. we sometimes seem intent on stripping people of their humanity so that we might more easily den grade or defame them -- den grade or defame them or put them through the grinder that our politics requires. we've seen -- we seem sometimes even to enjoy it. for the past two weeks we've certainly seen that happen to both of these human beings for whatever reason because we think we are right and they are wrong, because we think our ideological struggle is more important than their humanity? because we are so practiced in dehumanizing people that we have also dehumanized ourselves. whatever else they are or have

become to us, whatever grotesque chairkt tur we have made -- cairkt tur we have made of them or ourselves, before we are democrats or republicans, before we are even americans, we are human beings. as president kennedy said we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future. we are all mortal. and so these witnesses who will testify in a very important hearing tomorrow, these combatants in an undeclared war, these people are not props for us to make our political points, nor are they to be demolished like anita hill as was said on conservative media the other night. nor is one of them a proven sex criminal as has been circulating on the left side of the internet. these are human beings with families and children, people who love them and people whom they love and live for.

and each is suffering through a very ugly process that we have created. i will not review the unseemly process that brought us to that point -- to this point because there is for another time and in any case, it didn't start with this particular nomination. but here we are. there was an earlier case 27 years ago from which you might have thought we would have learned something, but the past couple of weeks makes it clear that we haven't learned much at all. consequently, there have been cries from both sides of these proceedings that each of the witnesses has fallen victim to character assassination. both of these claims are absolutely correct so i will say to these witnesses, these human beings, we owe you both a sincere apology. an apology is inadequate, of course, but it's a start. we can't undo the damage that's

been done but we can govern our own behavior as we go through this painful hearing tomorrow and in the days afterwards. we must do that less we do even more damage. some of the public comments about both of these witnesses have been vile. not unrelated to these comments, each of these witnesses has reportedly been subject to death threats and for that we should be ashamed. the toxic, political culture that we have created has infected everything, and we've done little to stop it. in fact, we've only indulged it, fanned the flames, taken partisan advantage at every turn, deepened the ugly divisions that exist in our country. these past two years we have tested the limits of how low we can go and my colleagues, i say to you that winning at all costs is too high a cost. we cannot have a human rather than a political -- if we cannot

have a human rather than a political response to these witnesses, if we are heedless to the capacity that we have to do real and lasting damage, then we shouldn't be here. when dr. ford came forward, i felt strongly that her voice needed to be heard. that's why i informed chairman grassley that the judiciary committee could not and should not proceed to a vote until she had the opportunity to make her voice heard. until such time her claims were fully aired and carefully considered and her credibility gauged. this is a lifetime appointment and this is said to be a deliberative body. in the interest of due diligence and fairness, it seemed to me to be the only thing to do. not everyone felt this way. one man somewhere in the country called my office in arizona and left a message saying that he was tired of me interrupting my

president. and for that offense of allowing dr. ford to be heard, for this offense, me and my family would be taken out. i mention this with reluctance but only to say we have lit a match, my colleagues. the question is, do we appreciate how close the powder keg is. tomorrow we will have a hearing. many members of this body from both party vs already made up -- parties have already made up their minds on the record in advance of the hearing. they will presumably hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. one is tempted to ask, why even bother having a hearing. i do not know how i will assess the credibility of these witnesses, these human beings on the grave matters that will be testified to because i've not yet heard a word of their testimony and because i am not psychic, i am not gifted with

claire voice yans -- clairvoyance. i will have to listen to the testimony before i make up my mind about the testimony. what i do know is i do not believe dr. ford is part of some vast conspiracy from start to finish to smear judge kavanaugh as has been alleged by some on the right, and i do know that i do not believe that judge kavanaugh is some kind of serial sexual predator as some have alleged on the left. i must also say that separate and apart from this nomination and the facts that pertain to it, i do not believe that the claim of sexual assault is invalid because a 15-year-old girl didn't promptly report the assault to authorities, as the president of the united states said just two days ago. how uninformed and uncaring do we have to be to say things like that much less believe them.

do we have any idea what kind of message that send, especially to young women? how many times do we have to marginalize and ignore women before we learn that important lesson? and now if i must say a word or two about the human beings first on the judiciary committee and then in the full senate would will have to weigh the testimony that we will hear tomorrow and to come to some kind of decision on this nomination. the judiciary committee is scheduled to vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination on friday. i hope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote. but those of us on the committee have to be prepared for the possibility, indeed the likelihood that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. in legal terms, the outcome might not be dispositive. well, we can only vote yes or

no, i hope that we in this body will acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. we are imperfect humans. we will make imperfect decisions. this monumental decision will no doubt fit that description, up or down, yes or no, however this vote goes, i'm confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt. this doubt is the only thing of which i am confident about this process. i say to all of my colleagues for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. we must listen. we must do our best, seek the truth in good faith. that is our only duty. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.