leverage that way, but i appreciate his support for a full and fair hearing for dr. ford and judge kavanagh as well as his willingness to allow this to go forward subject to his request. >> mr. chairman. >> i think i'll call on senator feinstein. and then -- >> if i through the chair could ask a question of senator flake. does your amendment include continuing the investigation during this period of time? >> if i can responsible. there is no amendment. i'm simply stating -- the discussion that we had between us all, i would hope and i think we have some agreement before, that the democrats who have been, i think, justifiably uncomfortable moving ahead -- >> we are going leave the committee meeting now and take you live to the floor or the us senate but you can continue to watch the meeting on c-span3 or

online at c-span.org. the senate expected to consider legislation dealing with the federal aviation administration. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

infinite spirit, creator of heaven and earth, the sea, and all that lives in it, thank you for the gift of another day. we praise you that you are the same yesterday, today, and forever. remind us of the foolishness of seeking security apart from you. bless our lawmakers. protect them in their work as you give them your peace. be for them a light in the darkness and a shelter from life's storms. lord, give them the wisdom to make decisions that will bring

glory and honor to your name. we pray in your great name. amen. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., september 28, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john boozman, a senator from the state of arkansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning session with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, like millions of people across the country, i watched the hearing yesterday with a mix of so many strong emotions. first, i watched dr. ford with tears in my eyes. she was so brave, so compelling, so real. the memories that she recounted, the memories that she will never forget were heartbreaking. the living room, the stairs, the bedroom, the music turned up loud, the bed. brett kavanaugh drunk and on top of her. the feelings she had when he covered her mouth to stop her from screaming. the raucous laughter between brett kavanaugh and mark judge, the way she felt it then and

told it now, two boys laughing and having a good time while scared. a 15-year-old girl lay pinned down on a bed worried she may die. the bathroom, listening for brett and mark to leave, hearing them bounce off walls as they went back down the stairs, leaving the house, the sense of relief that she escaped. and something anyone who has been a 15-year-old girl can understand, not wanting to tell her parents she'd been out of house with no adults, older boys. it was gutting. dr. ford spoke for herself but she was channeling the voices of millions of women and survivors across the country who are too often ignored, interrupted, bullied, or swept aside. she was an inspiration. and i hope every one of my colleagues watched her speak and answer questions. she made it clear she was not there because she wanted to be

but because she felt she had to be. she shared her story not because she wanted to create a spectacle or embarrass anyone but because she felt it was her civic duty to share what she knew about judge kavanaugh to the people making the decision about whether or not he should be on our nation's highest court. the republicans on that committee were too afraid to ask her anything themselves but she did an amazing job keeping her composure under cross-examination by the prosecutor republicans hired to question dr. ford on their behalf. and dr. ford made it clear over and over politely but officially she welcomed an investigation. she opened up herself to questions and scrutiny. she took a polygraph. she remembered some details that

further investigation could help expand on, like seeing mark judge at the supermarket a few weeks later. and she seemed to not be able to understand why nobody was digging into these details that could help uncover even more. she said she came to be helpful. she wants to be more helpful. she did her job as a united states citizen and she was simply asking for senators to do theirs. mr. president, then i watched judge kavanaugh and i, frankly, was appalled and dismayed. the rage on his face, the sense of entitlement that he displayed, refusing to answer questions, sneering at senators while he demanded they answer his questions. the outrage that he was even being questioned about an issue like this after all he's done for his country. not an ounce of contrition, not a modicum of shame. the attempts over and over again to turn this away from the

substance, the allegations from women against him and the facts that could shine a light on them and towards attacks on the process and a political party. the continued falsehoods, things he said that just are not credible. from his claims that he never, never got blackout drunk or had memory lapses during a night of drinking despite everything we have heard from people who know him and everything we've heard from him in -- about him in the past about his younger days. to claim that he and dr. ford didn't, quote, travel in the same social circles when we know that's just not true. he has said before he was good friends with colt&arms girls and we know -- to his absolutely false claim that the committee had already received all the evidence it needs which as a judge, he knows is simply not the case. and on and on. but, mr. president, the most

striking thing to me was this. and this is something i hope every senator pays a close attention to because i know it's what people across the country saw vividly and repeatedly, and that is the fact that judge kavanaugh so clearly does not want an investigation. he does not want the facts to come out. he doesn't want other witnesses to be brought in who if he's telling the truth could corroborate his story and clear his name. he certainly doesn't want anyone to hear from the other two women who come forward with their experiences regarding him and sexual assault and who are willing to come and testify under oath. he wants to rush through this as quickly as he can with as little information as possible coming out. mr. president, is that how someone acts if they truly have nothing to hide? is this how someone behaves if they truly want to clear their good name? is this what someone innocent,

truly innocent of everything he's being accused of would do? but, mr. president, i want to close by setting aside of what i thought of the hearing yesterday for just a minute. i believe dr. ford. i thought she was telling the truth but i want to set that aside to make one more point. because maybe some of my colleagues watched that hearing yesterday and didn't see it the same way i did. maybe they saw that hearing and thought dr. ford was credible and they also thought judge kavanaugh was credible. maybe they thought this is a he said-she said. i just don't know who or what to believe. mr. president, here's my message to those colleagues of mine. yesterday's hearing does not have to be the final word. there is absolutely no rush, none, zero. we have an opportunity to take a breath and slow down and let this process work the way that it is supposed to. now, the 11 republicans on the judiciary committee may have

scrambled to rush this through their phase but we do not have to follow suit here in the senate. we can have the f.b.i. investigate. we can continue our own investigations. we can bring in additional relevant witnesses in the most appropriate ways or hold additional hearings. i know we all want this to be over. trust me. i wish we didn't have to go through this. but we simply cannot allow a supreme court justice to be jammed through like this right now. it would be a disgrace. it would damage the integrity of the supreme court, and it would shred wharve integrity -- whatever integrity we have left in the united states senate. so i say to those colleague, even if you hate how this process has gone so far, even if you wish this had been done differently, that the information had come out about these allegations sooner, even if you think this was bungled completely, even if you want to point fingers and blame democrats for that, fine.

but we are here right now, right here. and we are facing one of our most important jobs as united states senators laid out in article 2, section 2 of our constitution to provide advice and consent on supreme court mom -- court nominations. we can litigate how this went later. i'm sure there are ways that it could have been better. we can figure that out. we should figure that out so we can do better next time. but we should not, we cannot let anger and pique over process and politics cloud what is clearly the right thing to do here. i hear there are conversations going on in the judiciary committee right now about slowing down and starting investigations. i am hopeful those end up leading us to being able to do our jobs. no one, no one should want those allegations hanging out there or should want the investigations to happen and information to

come out while he's on the court. let's slow down. let's learn more. let's not put a man on the supreme court with these allegations swirling around him and while we still have the opportunity to clear this up and get it right. and finally, mr. president, i want to say one more thing. to women and survivors right now who are angry, who are dispirited, who have reached out to me and told me they are shocked, they are crying, they are in disbelief. to them i say we all have a right to these tears, but we all have a duty to not give up. i'm not tbifg up. i'm not -- giving up. i'm not going to give up this fight to make sure that women who bravely woman forward are not ignored, swept under the rug, or silenced by powerful men, and i know that i stand with millions and millions of women and men across the country who are watching the united

states senate very closely right now, and they're not going to give up either. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clert the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

bring. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, these are the remarks i would have given at this morning's judiciary committee markup after the perfunctory and dismissive way that the chairman treated the minority members of the judiciary committee. i walked out in protest. here are the remarks i would have given at the committee markup. i am in disbelief that we are here today voting on brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. outrageous does not begin to describe the present circumstances. yesterday we heard from dr. dr. christine blasey ford who spoke with genuine and raw emotional power about being sexually assaulted by brett kavanaugh. even though it was more than 30 years ago, her memory of the assault was clear and vivid.

this kind of recall is typical of sexual assault survivors. she was sin veer and authentic. she was 100% credible, and i believe her. by contrast, brett kavanaugh came to this committee and refused to give us straight answers. he would not call for an f.b.i. investigation. he repeatedly stated that the other people who were at the gathering where dr. ford was attacked had, to quote him, rebutted her testimony. that is not true. his alleged accomplice in the attack, mark judge, claimed he didn't remember, a far cry from rebutting her statement. he claimed he didn't remember, refused to testify and then went into hiding. patrick smyth and leland keyser

said they simply don't remember. again, hardly a rebuttal. as dr. ford said yesterday, quote, i don't expect p.j. and leland would remember this evening. it was a very unremarkable party. it was not one of their more notorious parties because nothing remarkable to them happened that evening, end quote. in fact, even though she doesn't remember, leland keyser said she believes dr. ford's account. in addition to making misleading statements, which is a pattern with judge kavanaugh, he accused the democratic senators of coordinating a plot to sabotage his nomination. clearly, he was speaking to an audience of one, president trump. a nominee for the supreme court so rattled that he would buy into a vast conspiracy theory is astounding and dangerous. let's not forget his exact words.

judge kavanaugh said, and i quote -- this whole two-week effort, he said, has been a calculated and arc straighted political hit, fueled with apparent pentup anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that had been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups, end quote. with that nakedly political screed, brett kavanaugh showed us who he really is -- a partisan political operative with an agenda. the very worry that kept him from confirmation to the d.c. circuit for three years. his own words reinforced a concern that i and many of us here have, that he cannot be a fair and impartial judge. setting aside the unvarnished political view from a potential

supreme court justice, no less, the crux of the matter before us today is whether dr. ford was credible when she said that she is 100% sure that brett kavanaugh is the person who sexually assaulted her, and on that issue, brett kavanaugh admitted even without watching her testimony that dr. ford did not play a part and was not part of any imagined partisan plot. so what we're left with is his own recollection that dr. -- recognition that dr. ford has no motive and no political reason to lie. i challenge anyone who watched her testimony to claim that she did not tell us the truth. dr. ford wasn't the only woman to come forward with an account of sexual misconduct against the nominee. two other women have provided credible accounts that deserve real investigation. but whether it is one woman or three women, my republican colleagues are legislate nothing stop them from plowing through

to get brett kavanaugh to the supreme court as soon as possible. even before the committee had a chance to hear from dr. ford, chairman grassley had already scefd today's vote. by voting to support this nominee, republican colleagues are sending a message loud and clear -- sexual assault survivors should not come forward because we're not going to listen to you. they will not be believed, and their lives will be upended in the process. that's exactly what happened to dr. ford. as far as i'm concerned, there was never a serious effort by the committee to get to the truth. today's vote signals to the men and boys in america that you can demean and assault women, especially if you are in a position of power and influence. there will be no consequences. it won't even prevent you from becoming a supreme court justice. yesterday, accusations flew from the other side of the aisle about deliberate efforts to make up act saigz and -- accusations

and undermine judge kavanaugh's nomination, but democrats didn't need to manufacture additional reasons to oppose judge kavanaugh's confirmation. as i have maintained before, his record demonstrates a pattern of misstating the facts. he wasn't candid yesterday. he wasn't candid in his testimony to the committee when he testified at his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings or when he testified at his confirmation hearing for this nomination in 2018, and i found his candor lacking and the judicial opinions and legal arguments he offered. for example, as my colleagues have talked about in the past, judge kavanaugh was not honest with the committee in 2004 and 2006 when asked about matters that he worked on and his e-mails from the white house show that he was not honest about his awareness of receiving stolen documents from manny

mirando. in a case i am familiar with, rice versus kaitano, he demonstrated what could only be called a deliberate misstatement of the facts, a deliberate misstatement of the facts that he presented to the united states supreme court in this case, rice v.kaitano. he had to know what he wrote about the culture of native hawaiians was not true. he filed an amicus brief in this case. and at his hearing a few weeks ago, judge kavanaugh misstated the holding of rice and refused to correct his misstatement when i gave him a chance to clarify. i would say i'm one of the few people in the senate who read the rice decision. i know what the supreme court based its decision on, and he totally misstated the supreme court decision. advocates for our native communities are stepping up and taking notice. the council for native hawaiian

advancement and the alaska federation of natives issued statements that strongly urged the senate to reject the nomination of brett kavanaugh. they and other groups representing indigenous peoples have come forward to explain how judge kavanaugh's views of the rights of indigenous peoples are deeply flawed. these are the kinds of attitudes that he expressed in his amicus brief in rice v.cayetano. madam president, i ask unanimous consent for the following four statements that oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination or criticize his views of indigenous people to be entered into the record. they are from the council for native hawaiian advancement, the department of hawaiian homelands, the office of hawaiian affairs, and the alaska federation of natives. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: it is deeply troubling to have a supreme court nominee for a lifetime position who isn't candid with

us about the facts or straight with us about the law. in garzov.hargan, he did it again. in that 2017 case, he wrote a dissent in which he misapplied the law and treated the case as if it were about parental consent. it was not. the case, which is about whether a 17-year-old undocumented young woman could be released from immigration custody to have an abortion did not involve the question of parental consent, but he sat there at his nomination hearing when i asked him about it, he said that was a case involving parental consent, total misstatement of an issue in the case. so in that case, this young woman had already received a proper judicial bypass from a texas judge that allowed her to make her own decisions, so that was -- had nothing to do with having to require parental consent, she had already

overcome that. but that wasn't good enough for judge kavanaugh. he inserted his own views about legal issues not even present in the case. this is just one example of his outcome-driven approach to important cases before him. at the hearing, i also asked him about the pattern that was revealed in his numerous dissents. in several of those cases, his own colleagues called him out for misrepresenting the facts and the law. just last year, in ?aidz v. anthem, the majority said judge kavanaugh, quote, applies the law as he wishes it to be, as he wishes it were, not as it currently is, end quote. and in a 2008 case, agri process or v.nlrb the majority wrote, quote, meaning judge kavanaugh's dissent, creates its own rule. instead of following supreme court rules, they said judge kavanaugh's dissent abandons the

text of the applicable laws all together. it's pretty telling when your own colleagues on the court feel so strongly about your dissent that they will actually call him out on it. when this nomination first came to the senate, i was skeptical. i said that if the president's nominee to the supreme court is anything like the nominees he has been sending to the lower federal court, i expect we will see a nominee handpicked by the federalist society and the heritage foundation intent on carrying out their right-wing ideology supported by the president. it turned out to be much worse than i imagined. not only was the nominee someone who fit that description, it became clear that he was someone who lacked candor, credibility, and character. this has been displayed at every turn. after hearing from dr. ford and

brett kavanaugh and yesterday the editors of "america" magazine, a well-respected jesuit weekly withdrew -- they originally endorsed judge kavanaugh. this group withdrew its endorsement of judge kavanaugh. they said, quote, while we previously endorsed the nomination of judge kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputations as a committed technicallualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn. if senate republicans proceed with this nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault, end quote. i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that a copy of this article be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: in addition, robert carlson, president of the american bar association, the a.b.a., issued a letter urging the judiciary committee and the senate to not vote on judge

kavanaugh's nomination until there is an f.b.i. investigation and dr. ford's -- on dr. ford's account of sexual assault. the a.b.a. explained that, quote, deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the american people to have in the supreme court, end quote. i agree. brett kavanaugh does not have the credibility, candor, character, or i would say, as we saw yesterday, the temperament to be on the supreme court. his presence on the court under this kind of cloud will weaken the court. i cannot support this nomination. madam president, i'd like to end the remarks that i would have given at the markup, but i'm giving those remarks on the floor now.

i would like to say that my colleague, senator jeff flake, has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without an f.b.i. investigation into the current allegations. i support that. i have no idea if the republican leadership is going to allow a time-out for that kind of investigation to occur, an investigation that i and others, the democratic members of the judiciary committee, have been calling for for what seems like months, and of course i would want an f.b.i. investigation to be thorough. i do not want some kind of a peripheral investigation to give cover to senators who are wavering. i would want an investigation by the f.b.i. to be thorough, to be

real, to provide us with the kind of information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, character of judge kavanaugh. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. blume thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum callen lifted. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call, senator. h-the senator is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. madam president, the judiciary committee had an extraordinary meeting this morning, and each of us spoke at some length about our reservations or support for the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to be a united states

supreme court justice. at the end of that meeting, as we were about to take a vote, senator jeff flake, our colleague, announced his decision that he would request and seek a one-week extension of the vote so there could be an f.b.i. investigation of some of the unanswered questions that still very seriously and urgently demand responses. and that is a very promising and important step. it has to be a real investigation, not a sham who are a show. it has to be penetrating and impartial, which the trained

professionals of the f.b.i. can do. i have a lot of confidence that the f.b.i. will do its job and answer those very serious and urgent questions. the answers are all the more oppressing after the extraordinary hearing that we held yesterday at the judiciary committee. the entire nation watched as two people told their stories. two very, very different stories, and also told in very, very different ways. but let's be very clear, the roles of these individuals and their responsibilities were also

very different. judge brett kavanaugh came before us for a job interview. he has no right to be on the united states supreme court. it is a privilege of extraordinary magnitude and significance. the position is one of the most important in our country, a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. our responsibility on the judiciary committee is not to approve just anyone for that job we should be seeking the best person, a person of intellect and integrity and temperament who will be fair and impartial, objective, and considerate.

i concluded well before the hearing yesterday -- it's no secret -- that i would oppose judge brett kavanaugh for the united states supreme court. my opposition was based on his extreme ideological views and judicial philosophy which were amply demonstrated at the previous hearing we had with him. my concerns that he would be a fifth vote to cut back or even overturn roe v. wade and stop women from making decisions about when they would become pregnant or have children, stop people from marrying and exercising their right to do so with the person they love, cutting back on consumer rights

and worker rights and environmental objective and permitting an imperial presidency, a president who could decide unilaterally that he believes the law is unconstitutional and therefore it should not be enforced, meaning that laws protecting millions of americans who suffer from preexisting conditions like diabetes and heart disease, cancer, mental illness, and, yes, pregnancy would go unprotected and other rights under the affordable care act. an imperial presidency giving the power that kind of unilateral authority is an anathema. but what we saw yesterday went beyond views on substantive issues. and i will be very blunt, what we saw was a man filled with

anger, even rage, and self- pity, someone of arrogance , highly and intensely partisan, and someone, in my view, temperamentally unfit for the united states supreme court. in fact, i fear his rancor and animus, his partisan bitterness which came across so clearly and explicitly in his reference to a left-wing conspiracy, democrats organized to fight him and destroy his family.

a conspiratorial view of the world that is not only factually totally false, but also deeply dangerous and unprecedented in anything we have ever heard from any nominee for any judicial position as long as i've been here, and i believe unprecedented also in the senate's consideration of supreme court nominees. he indicated a partisanship that was disrespectful and dangerous. we saw also a woman who came before us as a sexual assault survivor, who was temperamentally almost exactly the opposite. instead of hostile, she was

helpful. instead of angry, she was calm. instead of rancorous and arrogant, she was modest and humble. like judge kavanaugh, her family has been harmed by death threats and other vile, vicious behavior that has no tolerance in a democratic society. and my heart goes out to both families who should reject threats to both of those families as we do to anyone else in our society. and i have sympathy for the children and the families on both sides, and others who may have been affected in coming forth with the truth that

relates to this nomination. but the demeanor of professor dr. christine blasey ford was completely distinct and different. she was mesmerizeing. even now her visage haunts me in her profound honesty. she was credible and powerful in recounting events that caused her untold terror and anguish, events that she hid because of the trauma that she experienced then. and because of many of the fears

that cause other survivors of sexual assault to hide the same kinds of assaults, the fears of blame and public shaming and character assassination and threats of retaliation. and sometimes self-blame or stigma or embarrassment. in her case, coming forward has made many of those fears a reality, tragically and unfortunately. she has endured the nightmare or family simply to serve the public with facts and evidence that she believes we should know, we in the senate, we in

america should take into account before we make a decision on brett kavanaugh as the nominee. so there are profound questions raised by her powerful testimony that need to be answered in this f.b.i. interview. that's the reason that the american bar association thursday evening called for postponing a vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court until sexual misconduct allegations made by professor blasey ford and others are determined and why a separate order, the jesuit of the united states of america

withdrew its endorsement of judge kavanaugh. he was educated by jesuits at georgetown preparatory school in maryland, and on thursday the editors said the nomination was no longer in the best interest of the country. i want to quote further the magazine which said if senate republicans proceed with this, with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of assault. were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disapproved, it would hang over future decisions on the supreme court for decades and further divide the country. end quote.

approval of brett kavanaugh for the united states supreme court would be a cloud. it would be a stain on the united states supreme court for generations to come. we do that damage to the nation's highest court at our peril. whether we are in agreement or disagreement with brett kavanaugh on his policy aims, as the magazine said. we're talking here about the fundamental integrity of an institution and our responsibility to uphold that integrity. in his testimony yesterday, she was convincing not only because of what she knew and recalled in such precise, vivid detail, indeed highlighting the laughter of brett kavanaugh as he groped

her and held her down, as he lay on top of her. the laughter from both him and from mark judge. and after we heard her compelling and powerful story, in judge kavanaugh, we heard several statements that clearly contradict the facts and evidence. they are untruths. he claimed that the f.b.i. had already investigated him because they did a background check six times. the f.b.i. never investigated dr. blasey ford's allegations. it never investigated deborah ramirez's allegations. it never investigated julie swetnick's allegations. in fact, the a.b.a. highlights

this point. senator grassley said that committee investigators were willing to talk to the witnesses about their allegations, but the committee investigators are no substitute for the f.b.i. the f.b.i. must send those trained professorrals to talk to these brave survivors who have come forward, and it must talk to mark judge. i offered a motion to subpoena mark judge this morning before our committee. the motion was voted down. the f.b.i. must talk to mark judge, who was allegedly in that room with brett kavanaugh when he assaulted dr. blasey ford. we asked judge kavanaugh to call for an investigation by the f.b.i. a person who is innocent would want the f.b.i. to investigate their claims and clear their

name. that is what dr. blasey ford wanted. she said so publicly. when brett kavanaugh was asked, he refused to make that same call. the question is, why? what is he hiding? what is the administration concealing in refusing to disclose more than a million pages of documents that relate to brett kavanaugh's service in the bush white house as staff secretary. they p bear on his credibility. maybe not on these specific allegations, but on his credibility. judge kavanaugh claimed that polygraphs are not reliable, that the polygraph that dr. blasey ford took and passed was meaningless. and yet, on the d.c. circuit as

a judge, brett kavanaugh ruled otherwise. he wrote, quote, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. as a former united states attorney, i know how polygraphs are used to test credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. and they may sometimes be inadmissible. they may be inadmissible generally, but they have a use. judge kavanaugh claimed that all four witnesses dr. ford identified being present at the party had said that the sexual assault, quote, didn't happen. but, in fact, only one person has said that sexual assault didn't happen. that one person is brett kavanaugh. the other three party-goers

identified by dr. blasey ford said that they do not remember. there's a big difference between do not remember and it didn't happen. and the other woman dr. blasey ford named who was there has since publicly stated that she believed dr. ford's account. she believes doctor ford -- dr. ford, and i do too. judge kavanaugh tried to give himself an alibi by making it sound like he never drank on weekends. his own high school calendar, which he provided the committee for evidence disputes that statement. during the hearing he admitted that one of the entries on his calendar on thursday signified he went to a friend's house to

drink. judge kavanaugh repeatedly said that he has never in his life had so much to drink that he couldn't remember everything that happened, but numerous people who spent time with him during his high school, college, and law school years confirmed that he frequently drank to excess and became bling rant and a -- bridge rant. he said that he treated women with respect. yet, he and his friends named one of my constituents saying that they were her all mius basically saying they were object fying her, demeaning her.

that is hardly treating with a woman with dignity and respect. judge kavanaugh said this reference meant nothing sexual, but renada disagrees. she said in "the new york times," quote, the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue. i pray their daughters are never treated that way. he said the allegations against him were, quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. end quote. he called it, quote, revenge on behalf of the collins, -- clintons, enquote. he issued a -- end quote. he issued a warning, more like a threat, what goes around comes

around. end quote. that threat to the judiciary committee of the united united s senate is a threat to america. it is profoundly and deeply dangerous to think that litigants will come before his court with the threat that their political views will determine how he decides their cases. that is antithetical to our basic fundamental principles of justice in this country. it couldn't veens the entire concept of an independent judiciary. president trump has demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law, but a member of one of the highest courts in the country

doing so is chilling. it is stunning. it is staggering. my republican colleagues, unfortunately, followed that example. they said, we leaked her letter to the press at the last minute to derail judge kavanaugh's nomination. they called the allegations again judge kavanaugh a coordinated smear campaign. that contention is false. it implies that these courageous survivors of sexual assault are puppets or pawns orchestrated by politicians. anybody who heard and saw judge blasey ford yesterday knows it is blatantly false. she came forward on her own initiative. she did it reluctantly

foreseeing the nightmare that would befall her and her family. she did it without encouragement from any member of the united states or any political figure. that contention is an insult to her and all survivors of this horrific crime. is deborah ramirez's story too a fab indicated -- fabricated allegation, when senator harris asked judge kavanaugh if he had listened to dr. ford's system, he said, quote, i did not. he should have. he should have listened listened to her testimony. he should have heard and heeded what deborah ramirez said about his sexual misconduct toward her, and likewise, july sweat --

swetnik about the chilling acts that he was alleged at involving performing. judge kavanaugh, and my republican colleagues, say that they don't dispute that dr. blasey ford may have been sexually assaulted at some point but by some other person, just not brett kavanaugh. maybe she was mixed up. maybe she was confused. those kinds of words used to describe her, and other sexual assault victims, demonstrate the disrespect and disregard that has shamed and silenced so many sexual assault survivors from coming forward to tell their truth and seek prosecution and

consult their parents or loved ones and seek healing. it is the reason that sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in our country. one out of every three women is a survivor, but so very few come forward because of the public shaming and character assassination and threats and rejection that they fear and, in fact, they rightly foresee. to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you cannot have it both ways. you either believe dr. blasey ford or you reject her testimony. either you accept her veracity or you don't.

after blasey ford was asked whether it was possible that she confused her attacker, whether there was mistaken identity, whether there was maybe someone else other than brett kavanaugh, firmly, unequivocally, repeatedly she said no. before us and the entire country she said she was, quote, 100% sure that brett kavanaugh was her attacker. this detail is seared in her memory. there's no mistaken identity here. a person so brutally attacked at the age of 15 who admits to these details and also the details that she doesn't remember and insists on the details she does remember

doesn't make something like that up out of whole cloth. she came forward at great personal sacrifice. i believe her. i think america believes her. she testified that she was terrified. that's her word, terrified, to come forward. she was very nearly silenced by her fear. she worried if she told her story she would be shouted down or vilified by judge kavanaugh's defenders and would never be held accountable. that happens to too many survivors many we must prove them wrong. he should be held accountable. a lifetime appointment to the united states supreme court is not an entitlement. it is a privilege for the person who is best for that position.

last friday president trump said about dr. blasey ford's story on twitter, quote, i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities. by either her or her loving parents, i ask that she bring those filings forward so we can learn the date, time, and place. president trump knows better. i hope he knows better. psychologists have noted, and it's widely known, that there are a number of reasons why survivors opt for silence, fear of retaliation and repercussions in the workplace or at home, feelings of self-blame.

they are told to dismiss it. they are told by their parents they'll be blamed, not the perpetrator. they fear that they won't be believed and they want to forget. they want to put this trauma somewhere deep and dark where it will be a source of less pain. so dr. ford did not share the details of her abuse until a therapy session in 2012. she told her husband early in their relationship, but even he did not know the details of this incident until that therapy session, and that's not uncommon for people who have experienced trauma. in the last few weeks numerous survivors of sexual assaults have stepped forward with their

stories to explain why they hid their own trauma and i want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the survivors who are coming forward now, stories of terrible crimes, of impulses to stay silent, and of fears that they have conquered in coming forward. and, madam president, i ask that these stories be entered into the record. i won't read them all now. but i wish for the statements of lindsey jones of connecticut, tara, who asked that her last night not be used, also of connecticut and survivors from other parts of the country who have contacted me just over the past few days be entered into

the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. let me conclude, madam president, with this thought. dr. blasey ford is a profile incurred, her name will be remembered long after many of ours are forgotten. she will be in the history books as a teacher. she is a teacher by profession for this teaching moment for america. it's a teaching moment for all of us, for women who need, perhaps, that inspiration and roll model to -- role model to come forward and to know that they will be embraced, not rejected. they will be believed, not shunned. they will be bolstered and heeded and their perpetrators

will be held accountable. it's a teaching moment for men, all of us, that we need to do better. it is also a teaching moment for young men. high school juniors and seniors like brett kavanaugh was. when he put into his yearbook that hurtful, horrible phrase about renate dolphin, in effect laughing at her and ridiculing that young woman, just as he laughed and ridiculed dr. blasey ford, then 15 years old as he allegedly was on top of her,

groping and trying to undress her, that laughter was the detail that continued to ring in the ears of dr. blasey ford, the most identifiable fact about that incident, as she said yesterday. that laughter is what i hear when i see that entry in the yearbook. so to all of us, men and women in america, her profile in courage should send a message. we should be proud of her, and no one should be prouder than her two sons. i say to dr. blasey ford's son, as i did this morning in the judiciary committee meeting, you should be proud of your mom.

you should be proud of your mom. she is an american woman who stood strong and spoke out and fearlessly and relentlessly insisted on america hearing her story. well, maybe not fearlessly. she had fear. but she conquered them. that's the definition of courage not to be without fear, but to act courageously in spite of it. grace under pressure. that's christine blasey ford, and i express my gratitude, i think shared by many in america, for that great teaching moment yesterday.

we should honor her by acting in a way that keeps faith with her honesty and bravery. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. ernst: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. con res. 49 submitted yesterday. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 49 providing for a correction in the enrollment of s. 2553. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mrs. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. ernst: i further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. ernst: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. whow whow thank you, -- mr. white house: thank you, mr. president. i'm here for my customary time to wake up speech, but before i get into it, i just want to express my satisfaction with the turn of events in the judiciary committee as the presiding officer may know yesterday was a rather bitter day in the judiciary committee with a lot of anger and tribal belligerence

and a nominee who was full of partisanship and conspiracy theory. it really was not a good day. but this is a funny place, and sometimes right after we've been at our worst something breaks that turns things in the right direction, and something happened in the judiciary committee today much due to the concerns and the fortitude of senator flake, so i want to give him primary credit. but i understand that the republican leadership has agreed that there will be a week-long delay in the kavanaugh vote on the floor and that the f.b.i. will be given a chance to do its job and take a look at the allegations that are out there about his conduct. that's not only a good thing for the senate because i think it releases a lot of pent-up

anxiety and hostility, but it's also a really good thing for the process because the worst possible outcome would be that we push this candidate through, he then got on to the supreme court, and it was subsequently shown that these allegations were not true and that -- were true and that he lied to the senate. and to clear as much of that cloud off of him is good for us, the court, and good for the country. so after a grim and battering day yesterday, i think we had a productive day today. i feel i earned my pay in the senate over in the judiciary committee. so what i want to talk about today is a new form of political weapon that has emerged on to the political battlefield in america and it's a political weapon for which america is not

well prepared yet. it is systemic and deliberate misinformation, what you might call fake news. vladimir putin uses fake news in russia all the time for political influence in the former soviet union and the modern european union and there is misinformation to help trump to win the 2016 american election. some also is homegrown. in america, the original weaponized fake news was climate denial spun up by the fossil fuel industry. the fossil fuel industry used systemic, deliberate disinformation to propagandize our politics and fend off accountability for its pollution of our atmosphere and oceans. so for both national security

and political integrity reasons, we need to better understand this misinformation weaponry. and guess what. science is on the case. a comprehensive array of peer-reviewed articles appeared last year in the journal of applied research in memory and cog nation. i'm sure it's on the presiding officer's bedside table for light reading. dozens of scientists contributed to this report and i ask that it be added at the end of the speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i thank them for their important work. what they found was interesting. one piece tellingly sub titled, understanding and coping with the post-truth era, describes

how, how the world domestic was spread online as one of the ten most significant issues facing the world. top ten. an obvious hallmark of a post truth world is that it empowers people to choose their own reality where facts and objective evidence are trumped by existing beliefs and prejudices, concludes one article. not a good thing. and this is not your grandfather's misinformation. this is not j.f.k. and marlin monroe's love child found in a salt mine, this is not aliens up ducted my cat. this is not just people being wrong. indeed, and i quote here, misinformation in the post truth era can no longer be considered

solely an isolated failure of individual cog nation that can be be corrected with -- that can be corrected with appropriate tools. this isn't just errors, there's something bigger going on. scientists from duke university agreed. rather than a series of isolated falsehoods, we are confronted with a growing ecosystem of misinformation. and in this ecosystem misinformation is put to use by determined factions. the intellectual appeals, con spitterral thinking, and sheer propaganda circulating within american society seems unrelenting said erin mcwright of michigan state.

they said that those who seek to promote systemic lies are backed by influential economic interests of foreign state actors domestic and foreign. let me highlight those key phrases, systemic lies backed by economic influence -- influential economic interests. an author from ohio state writes that this creates artificial polarization in our politics that is not explained by our tribal social media habits. his sub title too is telling. disinformation campaigns are the problem, not audience fragmentation. he notes these disinformation campaigns, and i quote, are used by political strategists, private interests, and foreign powers to manipulate people for

political gain. strategically deployed falsehoods have played an important role in shaping american's attitudes toward a variety of high-profile political issues says another article. in a nutshell, americans are the subjects of propaganda warfare by powerful economic interests. so how is all of this misinformation deployed? the insidious fallouts from misinformation are particularly pronounced when the misinformation is packaged as a conspiracy theory, they tell us. insidious, indeed, by wrapping deliberate misinformation in conspiracy theory the propaganda degrades the targets defenses against correction by legitimate information. conspiracy theories, the articles note, tend to be

particularly prevalent in times of economic and political crises. pulling emotional strings is another technique. emotionally weaponized fake news is rejected in, and i quote, the prevalence of outraged discourse on political blogs, talk radio, and cable news. end quote. these powerful interests also take advantage of, and i quote, the stiewlization of false -- constitutionalization of false qirveg lens in so-called mainstream media. the media con-- they leave media conventions to their private advantage. another tactical observation. to be effective, the misinformation campaign does not have to convince you. it can simply barrage, confuse and stun you. one of these articles related the bangor daily news assessment

of falsehoods coming from the trump white white house. and i quote. the idea isn't to convince people of untrue things. it's to fatigue them so that they will stay out of the political province entirely regarding the truth as just too difficult to determine. end quote. this of course is a well known political propaganda strategy with the bangor daily news, the researchers note, and i quote them, mirrored by analysts of russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns. mcgreat and dunlap describe how weaponized fake news, what they call the intentional promotion of misinformation, is made into systematic propaganda by amplification and what they call the, quote, powerful, conservative echo chamber. it is systematic and it is

deliberate and it is supported by a purposeful private apparatus which brings us to what the authors call utility to information to powerful and economic interests. what they conclude basically is that the weaponnization of fake news is done for profit and with purpose. it has an apparatus of amplification. it needn't convince but simply stun and confuse. like an insidious virus, it can carry its own conspiracy theory and emotional pay load countermeasures against the ordinary antibodies that ordinarily protect us from being misled. the scientists urge that we must examine these systematic campaigns of false information, i quote, through the lens of political drivers that have

created an alternative epass molg that does not conform to conventional standards of evidentiary support. let's unpack that language a minute. begin with the fact that it its political drivers behind the scheme. this is a tool in a larger battle for political supremacy. to help win this battle, political actors have, quote, created an alternative epistamology, a separate way of looking at the world, obviously looking at the world that aligns with their economic interests. and that alternative epistamology is untethered from the truth. it, quote, does not conform to congress conventional standards of evidentiary support. it stands on falsehood, on prejudice, and on emotion, not on fact. what the authors call post-truth politics has motive and purpose.

it is, they write, a rational strategy that is deployed in pursuit of political objectives, end quote. in these propaganda campaigns by powerful economic interests, some stuff right now happens a lot more on one political side. scientists track an uneven distribution of emotion-ridden fake news and misinformation. i quote the prevalence of outraged discourse on political blogs, talk radio, and cable news is 50% greater on the political right than the political left. other authorsry and i quote, if the political context were to change, we might expect the distribution of misperceptions across the political spectrum to change as well. end quote. but for now, the weaponized fake

news virus predominantly infects the political right wing and modern conservative politics. quote again. the right seems especially adept at using orwellian language to promote their ideological and material interests via what we would argue are systemic lies -- systemic lies, end quote, right mcgreat and dunlap. so who does this? weaponizeed fake news is not cheap. it's not cheap to test. it's not cheap to manufacture. and it's not cheap to distribute. and it's also not cheap to maintain a network to put weaponized fake news out there in a way that masks the identity of the economic forces behind the network. this takes money, motive, and persistence, and that means big industrial players.

what authors call the 800-pound gorilla in the room, end quote, is, quote, a political system that is driven by the interests of economic elites rather than the people, end quote. big economic elites playing a game of masquerade and manipulation in our politics. the scheme may look like pop poppallism. indeed, it's designed it look like popalism. but that's not what's going o. the disinformation campaign and i quote again is largely independent of the public's wishes but serves the interests of economic elites. the populist masquerade is part of the disinformation exercise. these economic elites take methods developed decades ago by one industry to use for another

industry today. we see this in the fossil fuel industry weaponized fake news about climate change. climate change denial we call it. the stakes here are very high with the international monetary fund calculating that fossil fuel exacts a subsidy from the american people of $700 billion per year. to protect an annual subsidy of $700 billion per year you can cook up a lot of mischief. where did the fossil fuel climate denial mischief begin? it began in the tobacco industry's fraudulent schemes to deny the health risks of tobacco. did big oil shy away from those tobacco tactics knowing that those tactics were actually found in court to be fraud?

no. no. indeed to quote an article, the oil industry has worked to promote doubt about climate change science using tactics pioneered by cigarette manufacturers in the 1960's. end quote. to protect a $700 billion annual subsidy, you can build a bigger denial scheme even than big tobacco, and they did. mcgreat and dunlap called this the climate change denial countermovement. its messages they say, and i quote them here, may be the most successful systemic lies of the last few decades. they continue. i quote again. briefly, this countermovement uses money and resources from industry and conservative foundations to mobilize an array

of conservative think tanks, lobbying organizations, media outlets, front group, and republican politicians. to ignore, suppress, obfuscate, and cherry-pick scientists and their research, to deny the reality and seriousness of climate change. end quote. other authors write that the current polarization of the climate debate is the result of a decades-long concerted effort by conservative political operatives and think tanks to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. end quote. to cast doubt, to cast doubt is the key phrase in that last quote. the authors emphasize, and i quote here again, climate science denial does not present

a coherent alternative explanation of climate change. on the contrary. the arguments offered by climate denial are intrinsically incoherent. climate science denial is therefore best understood not as an alternative knowledge claim but as a political operation aimed at generating uncertainty in the public's mind in order to preserve the status quo. end quote. how did that play out in republican policymaking? another quote. while climate change used to be a bipartisan issue in the 1980's, the republican party has arguably moved from evidence-based concern to industry-funded denial. end quote. let's be clear here. climate denial is not a search for truth.

as the evidence piled up that early climate change warnings were accurate, the climate denial campaign did not relent in the face of those facts. indeed, the scientists relate, and i quote again, the amount of misinformation on climate change has increased in proportion to the strength of scientific evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the earth's climate. end quote. it is a fossil fuel upgrade of the fraudulent big tobacco strategy. one example is the so-called oregon petition, a bogus petition urging the united states government to reject the 1997 protocol on global warming.

one article points out that the oregon petition is an example of the so-called fake experts strategy that was pioneered by the tobacco industry in the 1970's and 1980's. end quote. of course, since this scheme isn't real science, it doesn't use real scientific outlets. quote, much of the opposition to mainstream climate science like any other form of science denial involves nonscientific outlets, such as blogs. end quote. another article notes that this is done on, and i quote here, websites that obfuscate their sponsor by mimicking the trappings of nonprofits and other more trusted sites. end quote. again, masquerade, even

camouflage, is part of the problem. and i think it goes without saying that in real science, it's not necessary to mask the real proponent. another signal of the scheme is repetition of falsehood. and i quote here. dozens of studies document an illusory truth effect whereby repeated statements are judged truer than new ones. in real science -- this is the -- the quote ends there. in real science when someone realizes that what they are saying is wrong, they stop saying it. in the weaponized disinformation scheme, you just keep saying it. you may be saying it more to capitalize on this illusory

truth effect. this of course recalls the infamous big tobacco declaration doubt is our product. that's a quote from a tobacco memo. the heart of the fossil fuel industry's scheme is to undermine legitimate science with false doubts. and to chip away at the scientific consensus on climate change. they chip away at the foundations of truth itself. one author sees this as the willingness -- i quote here -- the willingness of political actors to promote doubt as to whether truth is ultimately knowable. end quote. think the president's lawyer giuliani saying truth isn't truth. or whether empirical evidence is important. end quote. think climate den thiel, trying to -- denial, trying to drown out the truth through repetition

of false statements. and third, whether the fourth estate has value. think of the president attacking the legitimate media as fake news and the enemy of the people. the scientific paper concludes, and i quote here, undermining public confidence in the institutions that produce and disseminate knowledge is a threat to which scientists must respond. sadly, real science is poorly adapted to defending itself against weaponized disinformation in the public arena. let me conclude with what one article calls a case study in the spread of misinformation. last year's unite the right rally in charlottesville, virginia, which led to the murder of heather heier, killed

by a white supremacist speeding into a crowd. a witness recorded on film the car plowing into that crowd of people. i quote -- within hours, write the authors, conspiracy theories began floating around the internet among people associated with the alt-right, end quote, attempting to undermine and discredit the witness. social media posts then appeared, quote, suggesting that the driver staged the attack, was trained by the c.i.a., and funded by either george soros, hillary clinton, barack obama, or the global jewish mafia, end quote. quoting again, those conspiracy theories migrated into more

mainstream media. variations appeared on infowars and sean hannity's show on fox, end quote. fox news, by the way, is a common venue for fake news. here is what the scientists chronicle as the fox news effect. i quote them here -- it has repeatedly been shown that people who report that they source their news from public broadcasters become better informed the more attention they report paying to the news, whereas the reverse is true for self-reported consumers of fox news. for self-reporting viewers of fox news, increasing frequency of news consumption is often associated with an increased likelihood that they are misinformed about various

issues, end quote. in a nutshell, the more you watch real news, the more you know, the more you watch fox news, the less you know. great for the elite merchants of doubt. the effects of misinformation become measurable, looking at provable falsehoods that people are made to believe. a 2011 poll showed that 51% of republican primary voters thought that then-president obama had been born abroad. 20% of respondents in a representative u.s. sample have been led to believe that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists. the idea that the democratic party was running a child sex ring was at one point believed or accepted as being possibly true by nearly one-third of americans and nearly one half of trump voters. end quote.

all proveably false, all propagated until significant numbers of people believed. so how do we fight back? the researchers offer an array of approaches. russian propaganda can be digitally contained by supporting media literacy and source criticisms, said one. our recommendation, wrote another, is to begin by generating a list of the skills required to be a critical consumer of information. in essence, mr. president, we have to adapt new citizenship skills to protect ourselves from weaponized fake news. another recommendation is to teach people about the tactic of sewing -- sowing doubt through disinformation. where critical views for credibility have been hijacked, end quote, understanding the tactics will help inoculate people against being taken in by the scheme. the researchers report, and i

quote here, participants read about how the tobacco industry in the 1970's used fake experts, people with no scientific background or doctors and scientists with beliefs unrepresentative of the rest of the scientific community, to create the illusion of an ongoing debate about smoking's negative health consequences. participants who read about the fake experts type of argument were less affected when later reading a passage on climate change that quoted a scientist who referred to climate change as still hotly debated among scientists, end quote. other authors argue that a comprehensive approach will be needed to debunk climate denial. climate denial, they note, typically masquerades as pro-science skepticism and paints the actual science of climate change as being corrupt or post-modern. it is possible that these carefully crafted forms of

misinformation will require continued human debunking as well as increased media literacy, end quote. and last, there is a role for the media. at present, authors point out many representatives of think tanks and corporate front groups appear in the media without revealing their affiliations and conflicts of interest. this practice must be tightened and rigorous disclosure of all affiliations and interests must take center stage in media reporting. again, once you out the participants and show the scheme, people can figure it out for themselves. recommended media reforms include a counterfake news editor to highlight disinformation or a rating system for disinformation or a disinformation charter.

science itself is beginning to examine the growing threat of misinformation in american society, which is appropriate since science is so often the target of weaponized misinformation campaigns. more and more real science must face up to the fact that a new predator roams its territory and adapt new defenses against this predator. the predator may not want to defeat all science. they probably still want to use their iphones and drive cars and live in safe buildings and enjoy products and services that science gives us, but they do seek to defeat whatever science challenges the economic interests that fund them. the journal of applied research and memory and cognition, as i said at the start, is not

exactly grocery store checkout line reading. few americans have read this volume. i am probably the only one in congress. but its message is important, and that's why i came to the floor to share it today. campaigns of lies are dangerous things, like an evil virus in the body public, and if we want to be a healthy country, we will have to defeat the weaponized disinformation virus. during our body public of the ongoing fraud of climate denial would be a really good start. with that, i yield the floor. i note the deputy majority leader is here on the floor. i apologize for continuing my speech while he was here, and i appreciate his productive role

in the happy events that i described at the beginning of these remarks. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the appendix i mentioned be added at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as the world knows by now, yesterday we had another hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to be a member of the united states supreme court. it was necessary to do so because an allegation had been made by dr. christine ford to the ranking member, our friend, senator feinstein from california, dated july 30. but because dr. ford requested confidentiality and she wanted to remain anonymous, none of

this was brought to anybody's attention until sometime after the judge's original confirmation hearing occurred. the judge visited with 60-plus members of the senate, including the ranking member, and it was never mentioned to him. no questions asked about it. but contrary to her wishes, dr. ford was thrust into the national spotlight. she said she didn't agree to have her letter released to the press. she did not consent to having her identity revealed. she did not want to be part of what has turned into a three-ring circus. but once there, when she asked to tell her story, we consented to doing that, and yesterday we heard from dr. ford, as well as

judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh asked to be heard to clear his good time and speak directly to the american people, and he did so forcefully yesterday. so now we've heard dr. ford's story and we've heard judge kavanaugh's rebuttal. what we have learned is that there is no evidence to corroborate dr. ford's allegations. all of the people that she said were there on the occasion in question said they have no member of it or it didn't -- no memory of it or it didn't happen. no your object ration. as we all watched judge kavanaugh with his personal integrity in front of the nation, we watched his rightful indignation. he choked back his tears, and aimed his fury not at dr. ford -- none of us did

that -- but rather of this unfair confirmation process which frankly is an embarrassment to me and should be an embarrassment to the united states senate. to take somebody who has requested confidentiality and leak that information to the press and to thrust her into the national spotlight under these circumstances i think is an abuse of power, but having made that request once she was in the spotlight, we felt like it was very important to treat her respectfully and to listen to her story. i've told anybody who would listen i wanted to treat dr. ford the same way i would expect that my mother or my sister or my daughters would be treated under similar circumstances. conversely, i thought that we should treat judge kavanaugh

fairly, too, just as we would our father, our brother, or son. in other words, this is more than just about dr. ford. this is about dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. and we heard the judge respond with quite a bit of righteous indignation, as i said, talking about his family having been exposed to the vilest sorts of threats, including his two young daughters. now, i know it was a hard pill for many of our democratic colleagues to swallow, to hear the truth of what this terrible process has resulted in, both to judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. but too much was on the line for judge kavanaugh to withhold his defense of his good name. after all, his reputation is on

the line. his family is on the line. and his family, including his wife and his two daughters, are all caught up in what must be a miserable experience. still, i'm glad we held the hearing, and i'm grateful to rachel mitchell for participating in asking her probing questions. now, some have questioned why would a senator yield to a professional in the mental -- in the sexual abuse field to ask questions of dr. ford? well, it was simply because we wanted to depoliticize that process and to treat dr. ford with respect and gently, recognizing that somehow, somewhere she has been exposed to some terrible trauma. but it was important for ms. mitchell to ask questions to

get answers to those questions so we can do our job. i appreciate chairman grassley for doing his best to keep order and running the committee efficiently, as much as that's possible. i said at the first hearing after senators would speak over each other, would endlessly make motions that were out of order, when one senator said i'm breaking the confidentiality rules, i said this seems like a hearing by mob rule. not with the kind of demeanor and civility that you would expect from the united states senate. but i think chairman grassley has done the best anybody could do under difficult circumstances. as i said, this hearing was not easy for either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. it's been painful for everybody involved. but thankfully we are much closer to a resolution on this nomination. today there was a markup in the

judiciary committee, and i'm glad we were able to pass that nomination out of the committee to the senate floor. now, some are saying that we are moving too fast. to them, i would say, it's pretty clear what the objective of the opponents of the nomination is. their objective is delay. delay, delay, delay. some have said their goal is to delay this confirmation past the midterm election, hope that the election turns out well for them, and essentially defeat the nomination and keep the supreme court vacancy open until president trump leaves office. first there was the paperchase, that they needed more documents or perhaps they said you had too many. but the question i always had is, if you've already announced

your opposition to the nominee, why do you need more information? unless, of course, you're open to changing your mind. but it's clear that's not the game that we are engaged in here. now there are those who demand that the background investigation into two new allegations that appeared following dr. ford's be opened up, and today the majority leader and some of our colleagues have announced an agreement to extend the background investigation for up to another week for these allegations to be -- these witnesses to be interviewed by the f.b.i. but i would note that the most recent allegations are so absurd, are so fantastic that not even "the new york times" would run a story about judge kavanaugh's time in college, as reported by ms. ramirez.

they worked hard to try to corroborate her story by interviewing dozens of potential witnesses. none of them would confirm or corroborate mismarries' story. what they did find is ms. ramirez admitted that she may have misidentified judge kavanaugh. in other words, she admitted she may have the wrong guy. not credible, not serious, but dangerous. it's dangerous in the sense that some of our colleagues take the position that all you need to do is listen to an accusation and that's enough to make up your mind. you don't need to listen to the other side, like judge kavanaugh said in dr. ford's case that it didn't happen, he wasn't there. if you just listen to one side of the argument, i guess it does make making up your mind a lot

easier because you don't have to actually think about it, you don't have to think about what a fair process is in order to decide whose argument you believe or whether somebody has met the burden to show evidence that their claim is actually true. this has gotten so ridiculous that the newest claim is made by a young woman named julie swetnick, who's represented by stormy daniels' lawyer. it's riddled with holes. why would a woman continue to go to parties with high schoolers when she was in college and why in the world would she go to not one, not two, but ten of these alleged drug and alcohol-infused parties where gang rape occurred? it's just outrageous, incredible

now, we've encouraged all of these individuals, no matter how incredible the allegation may be, to work with the judiciary committee and submit to an interview with a bipartisan representation of the judiciary committee there. this is standard operating procedure for the judiciary committee. the basic background investigation is done by the f.b.i., but they're not investigating a crime. it's a background investigation where they take notes on their conversations with witnesses, but they don't tell you which witness to believe or what conclusions to draw from that. they send that to the judiciary committee, where the judiciary committee follows up with additional questions, if necessary. and lying to the f.b.i., just like lying to the committee, is actually a crime punishable as a felony. so both carry serious

consequences and a serious warning to those who might try to lie their way into a background check. but what is so ridiculous about where we find ourselves is, in addition to dr. ford's confidential letter to the ranking member being released against her wishes and without her consent, contributing to this circus atmosphere, as we continue to try to investigate some of these claims, the democratic professional staff have been refusing to cooperate or participate, even as they continue to make more and more demands. but it's clear that their appetite for delay is insatiable and delay is their ultimate goal. for those who continue to say they want the f.b.i. involved, i will tell them that the f.b.i. has been and is involved. it's conducted its background investigations just as it did in

the six previous occasions when judge kavanaugh was being vetted for other positions in the federal government. you heard that right. judge kavanaugh has been through six f.b.i. background checks, and none of these matters have come up previously. what we were doing yesterday with the hearing was part of the our job, which is to continue the investigation. i think people have a very narrow idea of what an investigation entails. it's not just a background check by the f.b.i. it's the interviews by the professional staff on the judiciary committee, and it's the hearings, like we had yesterday -- an all-day hearing from judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. that's our job. that's our constitutional role, to provide advice and consent. plus, if our colleagues across the aisle were really interested

in a background investigation of dr. ford's complaints in a confidential manner, like she requested, they could have requested that be done and the results reported to us in a closed setting. what happened to dr. ford is inexcusable. to have a senator sit on this allegation and refuse to turn it in to the committee so it could be investigated in a confidential way that would have protected her annan anytime and would have -- a none anytime and would have allowed the committee to question both judge kavanaugh and her, that didn't happen -- by designers perhaps. because the goal really wasn't about giving judge kavanaugh or dr. ford a fair hearing. it was about delaying this confirmation vote.

judge kavanaugh was interviewed about a week or so ago, and again yesterday. he talked about a fair process. in other words, hearing from both sides of an argument. but under our constitutional system, if you're accused of a crime -- and, believe me, judge kavanaugh has been accused of multiple crimes -- you're entitled to the presumption of innocence. in other words, there is a burden to come forward with evidence to justify and support an accusation. and if you don't do that, your accusation is not enough to meet that burden. usually what we have is corroborating witnesses, other people present at the time who can corroborate what the allegation is. but all of the witnesses that have been identified by dr. ford cannot corroborate or confirm

her allegation. they say, i have no memory of that, or it simply didn't happen. even the bible talks about the importance of corroborating witnesses. i didn't find this, but i vaguely remembered it. someone on my staff pointed out, deuteronomy 19:15, one witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. so this is a rule of ancient origin, dating back to the old testament. that's what we're talking about today. when is dr. ford comes forward with an accusation 35, 36 years after the fact and no one else can confirm her story, it's not enough to carry the day.

the other thing we need to be wary of is false choices. this is not a matter of he said, she said. someone said this is a matter of he said, she said, they said. dr. ford said one thing, judge kavanaugh said another, the so-called corroborating witnesses said another. but what they said did not corroborate dr. ford's story; just the contrary. they confirmed judge kavanaugh's denial of any participation in anything remotely like that, that dr. ford alleges. so after 36 years, as ms. mitchell was able to develop, we know that for maybe obvious reasons dr. ford's account has some inconsistences

and some gaps regarding the timing, location, and details regarding these events. i think we need to listen to her. we need to take her story into account. as i said, i want to treat her the same way i would want my mother, sister, or daughters treated under similar circumstances. but we can't ignore the inskin ten sis and the gap in her story and the fact that she is trying to tell it 36 years after the fact. we also can't ignore the full-throated defense and the heartfelt denial of judge kavanaugh, or the testimony that none of this is in the character of judge kavanaugh. we heard that from people dating all the way back to 1982. indeed, as ms. mitchell, a professional prosecutor, prosecuting sex crimes in arizona, she told us last night

that with her more than two decades of experience with the kind of case brought forward by mrs. ford, she would not file those charges against the defendant because there simply is not enough evidence. in fact, the only witnesses identified by dr. ford denied the event actually occurred. as a matter of fact, she said she couldn't even get a search warrant or arrest warrant in a case like this. if you can't identify the time or the place, you're not even going to be able to get a search warrant. you certainly can't show probable cause, which is required by law. so here's where we are -- if the allegation we discussed during yesterday's hearing remains uncorroborated and unproven, if it never came up in the context of six federal background checks, if it has been explicitly denied by the

nominee, if the three alleged eyewitnesses have no recollection of it or say it didn't happen, if it conflicts with the account of some 65 women that knew the nominee to behave honorably in high school and countless more women who have known and interacted with judge kavanaugh since, if the timing seems unusual, perhaps even politically motivated, and if our colleagues across the aisle chose not to act on this information once presented but, rather, spring it on us and judge kavanaugh after the fact, there is no reason in my mind that we should not move forward with the nomination. because we've seen what happens. this is not just about dr. ford. it's about the subsequent allegations by ms. ramirez and an additional allegation by ms. swetnick, each more salacious, each more incredible,

and each more out of character with what we know about brett kavanaugh. and it's going to continue. the longer this nomination is unresolved, there are going to be more and more people come out of the woodwork and make accusations that are uncorroborated and unprovable. but you can imagine what this does to judge kavanaugh and his family as he's left hanging like a pinata, where people just come by and take another whack at him and his family. but we have to move forward. we can't establish a precedent by which a nominee can be derailed by a mere accusation that's unproven. we're never going to get good people to agree to serve in these important offices, and we can't allow the nomination

process to be a drive-by character assassination that is unproven. the only ammunition our colleagues across the aisle need in order to shoot down any figure at any time would be innuendo, innuendo, speculation, suspicion, unproven allegations, nothing more. but we're not going to let that happen, mr. president. we're not going to establish that precedent. it would be bad for the senate. it would be bad for the united states of america. please don't misunderstand me. i'm glad dr. ford had a chance to have her say. we owed her that much. i know it took some courage, and it's a reminder to all americans that victims can and should be heard. as i said, i myself have two daughters. and like me, we all have a mother. some are fortunate enough to

have sisters or a spouse. and so this could be a very personal matter to each one of us. but we all know each of us have fathers, brothers, many of us have brothers. some have husbands and sons. in other words, my point is if this kind of uncorroborated allegation which seems so manipulated in exploiting vulnerable people who have made accusations like this, if we tolerate that, i think it will forever poison the confirmation process and discourage good people from coming forward. we must always be fair to both the victims and those who stand accused. it has to be a two-way street. i have supported judge kavanaugh's nomination because i've known him since the year 2000, and in my experience he's always been an upstanding and certainly he is an incredit --

incredibly well-qualified individual. we've heard everybody from his fellow lawyers to his law clerks to women he's worked with, to former presidents of the united states say that. we know he's got an incredible record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals where many of his decisions have been affirmed by the united states supreme court. i know he will judge fairly and carefully. i believe he belongs on the nation's highest bench. and in a few more days, after a few more delays, we will finally vote to put him there and say enough with the games. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

at the end of that meeting, as we were about to take a vote, senator jeff flake, our colleague, announced his

decision that he would request and seek a one-week extension of the vote so there could be an fbi investigation. of some of the unanswered questions that still very seriously and urgently demand responses in fact and evidence. and that is a very promising and important step. that can be a real investigation, not a sham or a show. it has to be penetrating and impartial, which the trained professionals of the fbi can do. i have a lot of confidence that the fbi will do its job and

answer those very serious and urgent questions. the answers are all the more pressing after the extraordinary hearing that we held yesterday at the judiciary committee. the entire nation watched as two people told their stories. two very, very different stories and also told in very, very different ways. but let's be very clear, the roles of the individuals and their responsibilities were also very different. judge brett kavanaugh came before us for a job interview. he has no right to be on the united states supreme court. it is a privilege of extraordinary magnitude and

significan significance. the position is one of the most important in our country, a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. our responsibility on the judiciary committee is not to approve just anyone for that job. we should be seeking the best person. a person of intellect, integrity and temperament who will be fair and impartial, objective and considerate. i've concluded well before the hearing yesterday, it's no secret that i would oppose judge

brett kavanaugh for the united states supreme court. my opposition was based on his extreme idealogical views and judicial philosophy, which were amply demonstrated at the previous hearing we had with him, my concerns that he could be a vote to cut back or even overturn roe v wade and stop women from making decisions about when they would become pregnant or have children, stop people from marrying and exercising their right to do so with the person they love, cutting back on consumer rights and workers' rights and environmental objectives, and permitting an imperial presiden presidency. a president who could decide unilaterally that he believes

the law is unconstitutional and therefore should not be enforced, meaning that while protecting millions of americans from suffering from pre-existing conditions like diabetes and heart disease, cancer, mental illness and yes, pregnancy, would go unprotected and other rights under the affordable care act. an imperial presidency giving the power, that kind of unilateral authority, is an anathema but what we saw yesterday went beyond views on substantive issues and i will be very blunt. what we saw was a man filled with anger, even rage and self-pity. someone of arrogance.

highly and intensely partisan and someone in my view temperamentally unfit for the united states supreme court. in fact, i fear his rancor and animus, his partisan bitterness which came across so clearly and explicitly in his reference to a left wing conspiracy, democrats organized to fight him and destroy his family. a conspiratorial view of the world that is not only factually totally false, but also deeply dangerous and unprecedented, in anything we have ever heard from any nominee for any judicial

position, as long as i've been here and i believe unprecedented also in the senate consideration of supreme court nominees. he indicated a partisanship that was disrespectful and dangerous. we saw also a woman who came before us as a sexual assault survivor who was temperamentally almost exactly the opposite. instead of hostile, she was helpful. instead of angry, she was calm. instead of rancorous, and arrogant, she was modest and

humb humble. like judge kavanaugh, her family has been harmed by death threats and other vile, vicious behavior that has no tolerance in a democratic society and my heart goes out to both families. we should reject threats to both of those families as we do to anyone else in our society, and i have sympathy for their children and the families on both sides, and others who may have been affected in coming forth with truth that relates to this nomination. but the demeanor of professor, dr. christine blasey ford was

completely distinct and different. she was mesmerizing. even now, her visage haunts me and her profound honesty, she was credible and powerful, in recounting events that caused her untold terror and anguish, events that she hid because of the trauma that she experienced then, and because of many of the fears that caused other survivors of sexual assault to hide the same kinds of assaults.

the fears of blame and public shaming and character assassination and threats of retaliati retaliation, and sometimes stigma or embarrassment. in her case, coming forward has made many of those fears a reality, tragically, and unfortunately. she has endured the nightmare befalling her and her family simply to serve the public with facts and evidence that she believes we should know. we in the senate, we in america should take into account before we make a decision on brett kavanaugh as the nominee.

so there are profound questions raised by her powerful testimony that need to be answered in this fbi interview. that's the reason that the american bar association thursday evening called for postponing a vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court until sexual assault misconduct allegations made by dr. blasey ford and others are fully investigated, and why separately, the magazine of the jesuit order in the united states of america withdrew its endorsement of judge kavanaugh. he was educated by jesuits at georgetown preparatory school in maryland and on thursday, the editors said the nomination was no longer in the best interests

of the country. i want to quote further the magazine, which said if senate republicans proceed with this -- with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy gains over a woman's report of assa t assault. were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over future decisions on the supreme court for decades and further divide the country, end quote. approval of brett kavanaugh for the united states supreme court would be a cloud, it would be a stain on the united states supreme court for generations to come. we do that damage to the

nation's highest court at our peril. whether we are in agreement or disagreement with brett kavanaugh on his policy aims, as the magazine says, we are talking here about the fundamental integrity of an institution and our responsibility to uphold that integrity. in his testimony yesterday, she was convincing not only because of what she knew and recalled in such precise, vivid detail, indeed, highlighting the laughter of brett kavanaugh as he groped her and held her down, as he lay on top of her, the laughter from both him and from mark judge.

and after we heard her compelling and powerful story in judge kavanaugh, we heard several statements that clearly contradict the facts and eviden evidence. they are untruths. he claimed that the fbi had already investigated him because they did a background check six times. the fbi never investigated dr. blasey ford's allegations. it never investigated deborah ramirez's allegations. it never investigated julie swetnick's allegations. in fact, the aba highlights this point. senator grassley said that committee investigators were willing to talk to the witnesses about their allegations, but committee investigators are no substitute for the fbi.

the fbi must send those trained professionals to talk to the brave survivors who have come forward, and it must talk to mark judge. i offered a motion to subpoena mark judge this morning, before our committee. the motion was voted down. the fbi must talk to mark judge, who was allegedly in that room with brett kavanaugh when he assaulted dr. blasey ford. we asked judge kavanaugh to call for an investigation by the fbi. a person who is innocent would want the fbi to investigate their claims and clear their name. that is what dr. blasey ford wanted, she said so publicly. when brett kavanaugh was asked,

he refused to make that same call. the question is, why? what is he hiding? what is the administration concealing in refusing to disclose more than a million pages of documents that relate to brett kavanaugh's service in the bush white house as staff secretary? they bear on his credibility. maybe not on these specific allegations, but on his credibility. judge kavanaugh claimed that polygraphs are not reliable, that the polygraph that dr. blasey ford took and passed was meaningless, and yet on the d.c. circuit as a judge, brett kavanaugh ruled otherwise. he wrote quote, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and

criminal defendants. as a former united states attorney, i know how polygraphs are used to test credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants, and they may sometimes be inadmissible. they may be inadmissible generally, but they have a use. judge kavanaugh claimed that all four witnesses dr. ford identified as being present at the party have said that the sexual assault quote, didn't happen, but in fact, only one person has said the sexual assault didn't happen. that one person is brett kavanaugh. the other three party goers identified by dr. blasey ford said they do not remember. there's a big difference between do not remember and it didn't happen.

and the other woman dr. blasey ford named who was there has since publicly stated that she believes dr. ford's account. she believes dr. ford, and i do, too. judge kavanaugh tried to give himself an alibi by making it sound like he never drank on weekends. his own high school calendar which he provided the committee as evidence disputes that stateme statement. during the hearing he admitted that one of the entries on his calendar from a thursday signified that he went to a friend's house to drink. judge kavanaugh repeatedly said that he has never in his life had so much to drink that he couldn't remember everything

that happened, but numerous people who spent time with him during his high school, college and law school years confirm that he frequently drank to excess and became belligerent and aggressive. judge kavanaugh claimed that he's always treated women with dignity and respect, his words, and yet he and his football friends from high school named one of my constituents, renate dolphin, in their yearbook pages saying they were her alumnius. in effect, boasting of sexual conquest and objectifying her, demeaning her. that's hardly treating a woman with dignity and respect. judge kavanaugh said this reference meant nothing sexual,

but renate disagrees. in a quote to the "new york times" she says quote, the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. i pray their daughters are never treated that way. he said the allegations against him were quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, end quote and he called it quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons, end quote. he issued a warning, more like a threat. quote, what goes around, comes around, end quote. that threat to the judiciary committee of the united states senate is a threat to america. it is profoundly and deeply

dangerous to think that litigants will come before his court with the threat that their political views will determine how he decides their cases. that is antithetical to our basic, fundamental principles of justice in this country. it contravenes the entire concept of an independent judiciary. president trump has demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, but a member of one of the highest courts in the country doing so is chilling. it is stunning. it is staggering. my republican colleagues unfortunately followed that

example. they said we leaked her letter to the press at the last minute to derail judge kavanaugh's nomination. they called the allegations against judge kavanaugh a coordinated smear campaign. that contention is false. it implies that these courageous survivors of sexual assault are puppets or pawns, orchestrated by politicians. anybody who heard and saw judge blasey ford yesterday knows it is blatantly false. she came forward on her own initiative. she did it reluctantly, foreseeing the nightmare that would befall her and her family. she did it without encouragement from any member of the united states senate or any other political figure. that contention is an insult to

her and all survivors of this horrific crime. is deborah ramirez's story, too, a fabricated allegation to take down judge kavanaugh? when senator harris asked judge kavanaugh if he had listened to dr. ford's testimony, he said quote, i did not. he should have. he should have listened to her testimony, he should have heard and heeded what deborah ramirez said about his sexual misconduct toward her and likewise, julie swetnick, about the chilling acts.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky, the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3532, a bill to authorize the united states postal service to provide certain nonpostal property, products, and services on behalf of state, local, and tribal governments. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read for the second

time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6897 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6897 an act to extend the authorizations of federal aviation programs and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 567, s. 2515. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 567, s. 2515, a bill to amend the indian self-determination and education assistance act and so forth and for other purposes

-- purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 632, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 632, designating september, 2018, as national workforce development month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is

discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 661 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 661, expressing support for the designation of september, 2018, as sickle cell disease awareness month, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 662 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 662, designating september, 2018, as campus fire safety month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 6, the opioids bill. i further ask consent that the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to concur, that there be up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the motion to concur with no further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky, the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: for the information of all of our colleagues, there were two very significant developments today. this morning, the judiciary committee reported out judge kavanaugh favorably. all 11 republican members of the judiciary committee voted in favor of reporting him out with a favorable recommendation. number two, we will shortly move to proceed to the kavanaugh

nomination, and i'm pleased to announce that all 51 republican members of the senate support the motion to proceed to the nomination. 100% of the republican conference supports proceeding to the kavanaugh nomination. now, in committee, they reviewed the most pages of documents ever produced pertaining to any supreme court nomination. literally hundreds of judicial opinions from his tenure on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. and five days of hearings during which judge kavanaugh testified for nearly 40 hours. judge kavanaugh testified on every topic, from complicated legal subjects to sensitive personal matters. and there was testimony and statements from countless personal friends, classmates, co-workers, former clerks, and other associates.

so the picture that emerged from all this is clear. judge kavanaugh is one of the most qualified and most impressive supreme court nominees in the history of our country. he's excelled at the highest levels of legal scholarship. he holds two degrees from yale, and for years has lectured at the harvard law school. he's issued more than 300 legal opinions from what is widely considered the second highest court in the nation. several have subsequently been cited in the supreme court's own majority opinions. along the way, he's built an outstanding reputation within the legal community for his clear, thoughtful writing, his exemplary, fair-minded judicial temperament. judge kavanaugh's qualifications have been affirmed by his peers and by renowned legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum. one self-described liberal democrat who advised him at yale said that judge kavanaugh, quote, commands wide and deep

respect among scholars, lawyers, and jurists. and this praise has been echoed by hundreds of character witnesses who testified before the senate or written us letters to praise judge kavanaugh's personal character and his integrity in the strongest terms. the committee has also thoroughly investigated the last-minute allegations that have been brought forward. the evidence that has been produced either fails, fails to corroborate these accusations or in fact supports judge kavanaugh's unequivocal denial. and in some cases, the accusers have been -- have even recanted their baseless allegations. all in all, this is a nominee who has received what many consider the gold standard of judicial qualification, a rating of unanimously well qualified from the american bar association. so this is a nomination that deserves to move forward, and that is precisely,

mr. president, what is happening. i commend our colleagues on the committee for sending this impressive nominee here to the floor with a favorable recommendation. now we will keep the process moving. the full senate will begin considering judge kavanaugh's nomination today.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand the senate has received a message from the house to accompany h.r. 302. i move the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 302. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk lays before the senate a message from the house. the clerk: resolved that the

house agree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 302 entitled an act to provide protections for certain sports medicine professionals and so forth with an amendment to the senate amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur in the house amendment ao the senate amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 302. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion.

mr. mcconnell: -- on the desk on the motion concur. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the national amendment to h.r. 302, an act to provide protections for certain

sports medicine professionals who provide certain medical services in a secondary state. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur with a further amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. mcconnell moves to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 302 with an amendment numbered 4026. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 4027 to amendment 4026. i. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to refer the report to the committee on

commerce to report back with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. mcconnell moves to refer the message to accompany h.r. 302 to the committee on commerce with instructions, amendment numbered 4028. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays arerd odd. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 4029 to the instructions of the motion to refer h.r. 3402. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays arerd ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. mcconnell proposes amendment numbered 4030

to amendment number 4029. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22, at 5:00 p.m. on monday, october 1, the senate resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 302, as if legislative session. further, that at 5:30 p.m., on monday, the senate vote on the motion to inis recognize cloture on the motion to concur. further, if cloture is invoked, the? remain in executive session and the postcloture time continue to run as otherwise under the rule, fionaological, that upon the use or yielding back of postcloture time, the senate vote as if in legislative session on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1127. the presiding officer: without objection. question is on the motion.

all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the knoll nomination. the clerk: nomination, supreme court of the united states, brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the majority leader and the senior senator from arkansas be authorized to he sign duly enrolled bills during the upcoming recess of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask when the senate completes its business tate, it recess until 3:00 p.m. monday, october 1. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until 3:00 p.mall be lifted.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, like millions of people across the country, i watched the hearing yesterday with a mix of so many strong emotions. first, i watched dr. ford with tears in my eyes. she was so brave, so compelling, so real. the memories that she recounted, the memories that she will never forget were heartbreaking. the living room, the stairs, the bedroom, the music turned up loud, the bed. brett kavanaugh drunk and on top of her. the feelings she had when he covered her mouth to stoper