>> hit on c-span2 just sent about to gavel and momentarily before outside the senate chamber and actually waiting to hear possible, some senators as this morning they are reviewing the fbi's report on the allegations against brett kavanaugh. senator mcconnell, majority leader, has filed cloture on the nomination meeting we may see about to move forward sometime in the next day or so with a possible final vote on the confirmation this weekend. that members can send it is our meeting and what's called the skiff, our capital producer craig kaplan tweeting about that. that is secured compartmented information facility to that's what they can securely reveal the fbi report on judge kavanaugh. we expect speeches throughout the day on the nomination of judge kavanaugh as the senate gavels in. we will have crews on capitol hill as you can see from the smoke outside the senate chamber and will bring you video as we are able to do that.

now we will take your live to the senate floor for this mornings session. 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. eternal spirit, giver of every good and perfect gift, we magnify your holy name. your righteousness endures forever. today, empower our lawmakers to do your will. give them insight that will make justice roll down like water.

and righteousness like a streety stream. may they remember that unless you build the house, they labor in vain who attempt to erect it. provide our senators with the wisdom to ask you for your guidance and to follow your counsel. lord, incline them to so labor that your will will be done on earth even as it is done in heaven. subdue freedom's enemies and provide a shield for liberty. we pray in your great name, amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag.

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 the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 4, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable dan sullivan, a senator from the state of alaskas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination,

which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, supreme court of the united states, brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the senate is considering the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve as associate justice on the supreme court of the united states. when the noise fades, when the uncorroborated mud washes away, what's left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us. an acclaimed judge whom peers and colleagues praise in the very strongest terms, a jurist whom the american bar association awarded its very highest rating unanimously well-qualified. here's what the a.b.a. says it takes to earn that distinction.

to merit a rating of well-qualified, the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community, have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, and the highest reputation for integrity and demonstrate the capacity for sound judicial temperament. this is the nonpartisan test that my friend, the democratic leader, among others, used to call the gold standard. well, judge kavanaugh passed that with flying colors. so, to be clear, this seal of approval comes from the a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary, an independent entity within the organization. even after the a.b.a.'s president tried to play politics with the nomination last week, the standing committee

reaffirmed its rating yet again. unanimously well qualified. that's brett kavanaugh. so, mr. president, how did we end up where we are today? how did we get here? how did we get from a chorus of expert praise and professional respect to wild tales of violent gangs, sexual assault rings, fistfights on boats in rhode island harbors, and the possibility -- get this -- of an argument in a college bar? an argument in a college bar? several weeks ago a confidential allegation of misconduct from nearly 40 years ago was linked to the press -- leaked to the press. since then, allegations have poured forth. many were just patently ridiculous.

feeding frenzy of ridiculous accusations. while some cheered on the feeding frenzy for political purposes, judiciary chairman chuck grassley and his staff rolled up their sleeves and went to work. they promptly investigated the various allegations that materialized at the last minute. chairman grassley reopened the public hearing so dr. ford and judge kavanaugh could speak directly to those claims under oath. that was after, by the way, he offered dr. ford the option to tell her story at anyplace of her choosing, either here or in california, either in public or in private, either with staff or with members, and offered that according to dr. ford's

testimony was seemingly never actually communicated to her by her lawyers, despite a professional requirement to do so. now, of course, the f.b.i. has completed a supplemental background investigation and delivered its results to us here in the senate. mr. president, this is now the seventh time the f.b.i. has thoroughly reviewed judge kavanaugh's background, seventh f.b.i. investigation. so what have we learned? what are the facts and the -- what do the facts and the evidence tell us after seven f.b.i. investigations? the fact is that these allegations have not been croobd. none of the allegations have been corroborated by the seventh f.b.i. investigation. not in the new f.b.i.

investigation. not anywhere. none of these last-minute allegations have been corroborated, as is firmed by the seventh and latest f.b.i. investigation. as chairman grassley stated this morning, neither the judiciary committee nor the f.b.i. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of these allegations. no backup from any witnesses, including those specifically named as eyewitnesses by the people who brought the allegations in the first place. let me say that again. no backup from any witnesses, including those specifically named as eyewitnesses by the people who brought these

allegations. in addition, one person has completely recanted their whole wild story. another accuser went on television and back pedaled from many of their own ridiculous charges. so the facts do not support the allegations levied at judge kavanaugh's character. instead, many of the facts actually support judge kavanaugh's strong, unequivocal denial. which he repeatedly stated to committee investigators under pending amendment of felony. which he firmly restated under oath last thursday before the full committee and the american people. which aligns with the testimony of hundreds, literally hundreds

of character witnesses who have known him over the years. for goodness sakes, this is the united states of america. nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. nobody is supposed to be until proven innocent in the united states of america. the senate should not set a fundamentally un-american precedent here. judge kavanaugh's right to basic fairness does not disappear just because some disagree with his judicial philosophy. our society is not a place where uncorroborated allegations of misconduct from nearly 40 years ago, allegations which are vigorously disputed, can nullify

someone's career or destroy their reputation. is that what the senate is going to be known for? a nomination comes up here, and we destroy a reputation. is that what the senate is going to participate in? so above the partisan noise, beyond this shameful spectacle, which is an embarrassment to the senate, what we will endure are the actual facts before us, the actual facts. upon reviewing them, only one question is left for us to answer. is judge brett kavanaugh qualified to serve on the united states supreme court? well, mr. president, there is a good reason the political opponents of this nomination

have never wanted to litigate that issue. oh, no. they want to talk about that. there was a good reason why they let the politics of personal destruction run away ahead of the facts in an effort to dodge that very good question, because brett kavanaugh is stunningly and totally qualified for this job. for starters, his academic and legal credentials are second to none. from yale with honors and on to yale law school, then came not one, not two, but three clerkships in our nation's federal courts, ending up with justice kennedy. his career continued with work in the office of independent counsel and the office of white

house counsel, and that was only the beginning. for the last 12 years, brett kavanaugh has served on what is widely considered the second highest court in our land, the d.c. circuit court of appeals, written more than 300 judicial opinions. several have formed the basis of later rulings by the supreme court itself. a litany of accomplishments is a fact, a fact. it's a matter of public record. but just as telling are all the accounts of judge brett kavanaugh, the person, that have been volunteered by those who have known him every step of the way over the years. we have heard from literally hundreds of character witnesses who heaped praise on the brett kavanaugh they know, the loyal friend and teammate, the standout student, the talented,

hardworking colleague, the brilliant legal writer, the respected role model and mentor, particularly to women. the devoted husband, father, and coach. these letters and recorded testimony were offered by men and women with nothing to gain for themselves. they were just glad to tell the truth about a nominee who they know possesses the character, temperament and equal if qualifs for this important job. judge kavanaugh's professors and others who knew him at yale describe a true intellectual, a leading thinker, a wonderful mentor and leader. one goes so far as saying it's hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of judge kavanaugh.

his former law clerks in full-throated support say judge kavanaugh's work ethic flows from a fundamental humility. they say he gives unflinching, honest advice and listens carefully to the views of his colleagues and clerks, even when they differ from his own. it appears here in washington of all political persuasions haven't minced their words either. they deem him unquestionably qualified by intellect, experience, and temperament and warned the senate not to miss this opportunity to, quote, put such a strong advocate for decency and civility on our nation's highest court.

mr. president, let's not lose sight of the opportunity before us. this process has been ruled by fear and anger and underhanded gamesmanship for too long. it's time for us to stand up to this kind of thing. we owe it to the american people not to be intimidated by these tactics. we owe it to the american people to underscore that you're innocent until proven guilty. it's the senate that's on trial here, mr. president. what kind of image will we convey to the public? can we be scared by all these people rampaging through the halls, accosting members at airports, coming to their homes? trying to intimidate the senate into defeating a good man. are we going to allow this to

happen in this country? so we will not pretend that partisan histrionics take away the basic fairness that every american deserves. we will not be hoodwinked by those who have tried hard to smear this good man, to drag him through the mud. and when that didn't work, they turned on a dime and started claiming his real sin was he spoke up too forcefully in defense of his good name and his family. they decided he didn't have a judicial temperament because he aggressively defended his good

name against this outrageous smear conducted in conjunction with senate democrats. who among us would not have been outraged by having a lifetime record drug through the mud with accusations that cannot be proven. in a blatant attempt to decide on the part of at least some senate democrats that the presumption of innocence no longer applies in this country. what kind of person couldn't have been upset about that? they claimed he spoke too forcefully in defense of himself, after being accused of such outrageous behavior that

cannot be proven. i admire him for standing up for himself, standing up for his family. i would be shocked if it were not done in an aggressive fashion. for goodness sake. so let's reclaim this moment for what it should be -- a chance to elevate a stunningly talented and impressive jurist to an important office for which he is so well qualified, so completely and totally qualified. a golden opportunity to give our great nation precisely the kind of brilliant, fair-minded and collegial supreme court justice that the court deserves. this, mr. president, is the good that senators will have an opportunity to do. we have a chance to do good here

and to underscore the basic tenet of fairness in our country. so i file cloture on the nomination -- i filed cloture on the nomination yesterday evening, and i will be proud to vote to advance this nominating tomorrow. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: minority leader. mr. schumer: are we in quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, it's another morning in the senate and another partisan diatribe coming from my good friend -- and he is my good friend -- the majority leader. instead of looking at what happened, that a young woman came forward because she felt compelled to, knowing she'd risk so much on herself, which unfortunately has happened, he seeks to blame somebody else, in this case the democrats. let's remember dr. ford came forward before judge kavanaugh was even nominated. dr. ford came forward and called up two people before anyone even

knew of her allegations, including one, a hotline from "the washington post," according to her testimony. and our colleague, my colleague here has engaged in a giant cue cue -- kubiki game. he knows how believable dr. ford is. he knows the american people, a majority of them believe dr. ford was telling the truth rather than judge kavanaugh. he knows that any focus on dr. ford would bring more feelings that judge kavanaugh is the wrong person for the supreme court. but he can't attack dr. ford because of her credibility greater than judge kavanaugh's, so he attacks, quote, democrats, increasing the partisan rancor and basically the fundamental lack of getting to the truth in this chamber. i'd like to ask the majority

leader a few questions based on what he said a few minutes ago. he said that this debate has been filled with partisan histrionics. mr. leader, are you accusing dr. ford of engaging in partisan histrionics when she came forward? he said that the politics of personal destruction is rampant. again, mr. leader, are you accusing dr. ford of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? he talked about people being intimidated. again, mr. leader, are you accusing dr. ford of intimidating the senate because she had the courage to come forward? and he talks over and over again about the outrageous smear. mr. leader, it's about time you came forward and came clean.

when you say outrageous smear, you are really referring to what dr. ford said, but you can't say so because everyone knows that kind of rhetoric would be outrageous. but it's her testimony that got this whole thing going. her testimony required by one courageous republican who said he wouldn't just rush things through, as leader mcconnell ait -- attempted to do. that's why there was a hearing. not any democrats. none. i said yesterday that the leader is telling one of the greatest mistruths i've heard on the floor, that democrats have delayed. again, mr. leader, what power do we have to delay? isn't it true that you set the time and place of hearings, or your which the chairs do, and you set the time and place of

when we vote, with no effect from the democrats? no influence by democrats. if you delayed, mr. leader, it's because you've delayed. if there's been delay, mr. leader, it's because you delayed. but ultimately dr. ford came forward and won america's hearts, and our republican colleagues were upset because that might derail their headlong rush to put judge kavanaugh on the supreme court. led by judge kavanaugh at his return testimony and by president trump and by leader mcconnell, they tried to misdirect the whole issue away from dr. ford, who is the cause, the reason we are debating all of this, and towards other bow -- bogeymen,

many of whom happen to be democrats coincidentally. it's wrong, but our republican friends are doing what my dear friend, the leader, is doing is demeaning to dr. ford. and demeaning is the last thing dr. ford and others who have gone through what she's gone through needs now, or deserves now. so i would say to the leader if you're talking about partisan histrionics, if you're talking about politics of personal destruction, if you're talking about being intimidated, if you're talking about outrageous smears, you are really accusing dr. ford of all those things. not anyone else. because she is the reason we are all here in this type of discussion, and no democrat importunes her to come. no democrat.

senator feinstein tried to respect her wishes and not make it public. that was not a political instinct. that was a human instinct. as i understand it, senator feinstein's staff called each week and said do you want to go public now and dr. ford said no and senator feinstein respected it. because she did that our republican friends are accusing her of manipulating. manipulating what? dr. ford's desire to keep this private? we heard what dr. ford said. she wrestled with deciding whether to go public. she knew the damage it would create for her family, for her life, her very life. she decided she had an obligation to come forward. she decided she had to. i believe her. a large number of americans believe her. but even if you don't believe her and you choose to believe judge kavanaugh, don't demean

dr. ford, which is exactly what you're doing. it's a shame. it's a low point in a headlong rush to get somebody whose views are out of touch with the american people, who would in all likelihood greatly limit women's health care and women's right to choose, who would greatly constrain health care, who would allow the president, this overreaching president to overreach with no constraint. dr. ford seems to be a casualty along the way in terms of the name-calling, the nastyness, and the viciousness. they don't say it's dr. ford, but make no mistake about it, it's her they're talking about because it was only she who brought all of these things up. not democrats. democrats didn't, didn't put

words in her mouth. these came from the heart. now i'd make three final points about the documents that have been released late last night. first, we democrats had many fears that this would be an all-too-limited process that would constrain the f.b.i. from getting the facts. having received a thorough briefing a few minutes ago, our fears have been realized. our fears have been realized. this is not a thor reinvestigation. -- this is not a thorough investigation. according to dr. ford's lawyers and ms. ramirez's lawyers, there were many, many witnesses that wished to be interviewed, and they said they were not interviewed. they should have been. why not? and what limits were placed on the f.b.i. so that they couldn't

do a thorough -- a full and thorough investigation? the word is it was the white house. importuned by some of the senate republican staffers here. well, the white house has two choices -- they can admit it or, if they deny it, they should at the very minimum make the directive that they sent to the f.b.i. public. if the white house didn't limit what the f.b.i. normally does what they do one of these background checks, it sure seems they did, given what the limited number of witnesses or the so many witnesses that weren't called, who should have been -- make it public. let the american people see. whether it was truly limited or not. and what else should be made public are these documents that

we're allowed to look at. first, again, the idea that this should be full and thorough and open and available is once again belied by the pettiness on the republican side and the white house. there's only one document for 100 members to see in the course of the day. that's very hard to do, and there's a lot of documents. there's only one copy of these documents. why weren't there ten copies in that room? what the heck is going on here? but it's just a pattern, a pattern of limiting access to facts, limiting access to truth, limiting access to what the american people ought to know. and so i reiterate my call, particularly after receiving a briefing about what the documents contained, that they be made public. obviously, there has to be appropriate redactions, and

there should be, to protect the privacy of those who were interviewed. but there's no reason on god's green earth that those documents can't be made public. let the american people decide. leader mcconnell said from the very beginning to the effect he's going to rush this through, starting with not releasing documents, followed by constraints from our senate republican colleagues on what should be -- on limitations on the f.b.i.'s ability to do the new background check, all the way to this morning with one document in that room. the white house and the republican side here in the senate has attempted to rush this through, regardless of the facts. it's wrong. it jaundices relationships between the sides in this body, which we all want to be better.

it hurts the agencies involved, the reputation of the f.b.i., and, above all, it hurts the supreme court and the american people. make no mistake about it once again, if this process had been open and fair, maybe the outcome would be different, maybe it wouldn't. who could tell? but at least there'd be respect for the process. that hasn't happened, and that is very bad for this body, for the supreme court, and for these united states of america. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, it seems like light-years ago, but it was july 9 when president trump nominated brett kavanaugh to be the next justice on the

supreme court of the united states. i want to recap, just to refresh everybody's memory, what has happened since july 9 and explain briefly why i will be voting for judge kavanaugh to be the next associate justice on the supreme court. most importantly, i want to make one point emphatically clear. the senate should not be intimidated under the circus-like atmosphere that has unfortunately surrounded this entire confirmation process. we should not be intimidated, and we should not be complicit in the orchestrated attempt to assassinate one man's character and destroy his career and to further delay this confirmation vote. when judge kavanaugh was nominated, it quickly became clear we were dealing with somebody who was well qualified and well respected.

he had served for 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he was well known for his expertise and his talent and his experience. former colleagues and judges said that. lawyers who argued before him on the d.c. circuit said that. his former law clerks said that. kelly scholars, including those who did not share his views on the law said that as well. so what happened? well, i think opponents of this nomination knew they couldn't beat his nomination the old-fashioned way, on the merits, so they decided to throw in the kitchen sink. first came the trash talking. their claims that judge kavanaugh's nomination would somehow be complicit with evil. that was a united states senator who said that.

another said his confirmation could spell the destruction of a constitution itself. these are apocalyptic words and rhetoric. most americans could spot wild untruths and petty shaming when they see it, so that didn't work very well, and opponents had to move on to round two. they then argued that judge kavanaugh could not be fair and impartial on the bench because his views -- because of his views on executive power or because of his experience in working on the terrorist detention policy following the attacks that devastated this country on september 11, 2001, when he worked at the white house. well, thankfully, the fact-checkers did their due diligence and spotted errors with each of these arguments, and so opponents of the nomination moved on.

next came the great paper chase, the insistence that more and more documents needed to be produced, including those that had traditionally been held back because of executive privilege because these were not documents that brett kavanaugh owned. these were documents held by either the national archives or the george w. bush library. but it's important to note that more documents about judge kavanaugh were produced for him than for all of the other supreme court justices past combined. so more paper on judge kavanaugh than all of the other supreme court justices combined. so once again, that argument eventually ran out of gas. fourth came the normally scheduled confirmation hearings which judge kavanaugh sailed

through with flying colors. opponents couldn't lay a finger on him, but that's when things began to take a darker turn. and i'm talking about the accusations that our democratic colleagues sat on for a month before seeing them leaked to the press, contrary to dr. ford's wishes and against her consent. these allegations, of course, regarded alleged high school misconduct on the part of judge kavanaugh, but the ranking member of the judiciary committee didn't share that with the f.b.i. for six weeks or more, isn't share it with bipartisan senate judiciary committee investigators who were responsible for supplementing the investigation of the f.b.i. and the background investigation. the ranking member didn't share it with the committee itself

during a closed-door session during which sensitive material would not be made public and where dr. ford's identity consisted with her -- consistent with her requests could have been made confidential as well while that allegation was investigated. and of course judge kavanaugh himself was never told of this allegation until some time after his initial hearing. now that includes when our friend and colleague, the senior senator from california, met one on one with brett kavanaugh. now don't you think if somebody had a question about an allegation being made against the nominee that that would be the perfect time to confront the nominee and say i have this allegation, what do you have to say about it? but she said nothing. by that point we know she had already spoken to dr. ford. we know she had already

recommended partisan lawyers to represent her. we knew that there had been arrangements by her lawyers to conduct a polygraph examination. this is all during the time when the senior senator from california had assured dr. ford that her name would be kept out of the press and out of the public limelight. but once she was sent to these partisan lawyers, they were preparing for battle. got a polygraph examination, plans were being made and hatched. but the ranking member of the judiciary committee who sat on these allegations for six weeks said nothing, including hiding the allegations from the very man whose name in the next few days would be tarnished when the full fury of our democratic

colleagues' wrath was unleashed. these accusations are very serious. they're crimes. judge kavanaugh has been accused of multiple crimes. i've said earlier that i want dr. ford, that i wanted dr. ford to be treated the same way my own daughters or my wife or my mother would be treated in similar circumstances. that's how i think -- that's the sort of respect that we owe any person making a serious allegation like this. but while we were doing everything we could to treat dr. ford with the dignity and respect that she deserves, our democratic colleagues did her a huge disservice. not only to her, but any other woman across the country who believes they have been a victim of a sexual assault.

and i say that because of the way they handled dr. ford's accusation and hid them along the way. we know dr. ford requested confidentiality, but our democratic colleagues deprived her of that against her will. her letter alleging misconduct on the part of judge kavanaugh was leaked to the press along the way, which is the way this sort of character assassination begins. anonymous reports to the press. we know that dr. ford is struggling to come to grips with difficult moments in her past, but eventually she summoned the courage to share her story. but what she didn't fully appreciate is that she was simultaneously being used and deployed as a political weapon. a last-minute time bomb that was designed to destroy one man's

reputation and blow up the confirmation process once and for all. i would say to our colleagues across the aisle who claim to be acting in dr. ford's best interest, it sure doesn't look like it to me. we did everything we could under the awful circumstances presented to us by our democratic colleagues to show respect for dr. ford and to accommodate her wishes for safety and privacy. the judiciary committee wanted to do what was best for her when it offered a bipartisan team of investigators to come to california and give her an opportunity to tell her story to them, out of the limelight, with the tv cameras off, respectfully and privately.

one of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this whole event, the very lawyers that the ranking member sent her to, these partisan lawyers, apparently didn't even tell dr. ford that this option was available to her. that's what dr. ford said at the hearing. we also brought in an experienced sexual assault investigator and lawyer from arizona to help us elicit the facts of her claim. and throughout the hearing we listened and tried to learn from what dr. ford was telling us. we took dr. ford's statements seriously. but then it was judge kavanaugh's turn. some of our colleagues now feign concern about judge kavanaugh's judicial temperament because of the way he forcefully defended himself at the hearing where he had been accused of multiple

crimes and accused of lying under oath. we know what judge kavanaugh's temperament is like on the bench because he spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. that's why the american bar association gave him their very highest rating not only for his experience, but for his temperament as well. they interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who had knowledge of judge kavanaugh's exer tease and his -- expertise and his temperament and they all said it was deserving of the highest rating that the american bar association could give. i wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime that we didn't commit and were forced into the public limelight to defend our good name and our honor and our

reputation and to protect our family against the threats that were being made against them. i'd be angry. i'd do everything possible to push back against the false accusations. and that's what judge kavanaugh did. along the way he, again, offered his denial of any of the allegations of dr. ford under penalty of felony. so the question is how do we decide, because we're going to be voting starting tomorrow on this nomination. isn't it somebody's word against another? don't we either have to believe everything one says or another? do we know who to trust, whose word to accept, when allegations were made about something allegedly that happened 35 years ago with gaps

in the story, inconsistencies? well, i think the first thing we have to do, madam president, is put these questions in the proper context. but here's the bottom line. this is not a case of he said, she said. it's a case of she said, they said. in other words, the allegations made by dr. ford are not confirmed or corroborated by any of the other people she said were present that day. one of those people she said was present was leland keyser, a female friend, one of her closest friends who said not only does she not remember being involved in anything like this, she said she never even met brett kavanaugh. this is not about believing women or believing men. that's a false choice. it's not about having to choose between a man and a woman when it comes to allegations of

sexual assault. it's not about being for the me too movement or against it, because who, after all, could be against it, women coming forward and telling their story when they believe they have been assaulted. no, what this is about is looking at the specific relevant evidence in this case in the proper framework. that evidence goes well beyond the impassioned and unequivocal denial by judge kavanaugh. in this case, as i said, there were three eyewitnesses who dr. ford said could confirm her story. and all of them directly refuted her story. what's more, nothing like this ever came up in the context of six previous f.b.i. background investigations conducted by the f.b.i. during judge kavanaugh's long and very public career. we've been told that the f.b.i.

during the cor of these now -- course of these now seven background investigations including the supplemental background investigation, that they've talked to 150 witnesses about judge kavanaugh. don't you think somebody somewhere some time would corroborate what dr. ford said if they -- if there was such a person? and we know that these claims conflict with the accounts of many women who said they've known this nominee to behave honorably not only in high school and college toward them, but the countless other women who have known and interacted with judge kavanaugh since. it just seems simply out of character for the brett kavanaugh that we've come to know as a result these hearings and these investigations. and finally, the timing of these allegations seem awfully

calculated and unusual. even politically motivated. and you compound that with the fact that our democratic colleagues chose not to act on the opportunity to investigate them either through the judiciary committee staff or the f.b.i. when it was much more appropriate to do so. well, those are the facts i believe we should consider, and that is the evidence that suggests that judge kavanaugh is telling the truth. the counter arguments offered by our democratic colleagues are not compelling, and i think deep down they realize it. that's why they keep changing their position. moving the goalpost, as you've heard. that's why they finally resorted to talking about alleged ice throwing incidents in college. man, that's disqualifying, they say apparently.

or let's look at his high school yearbook. well, i would stipulate that teenage boys -- well, i was one once -- are not that smart when we're teenage boys. and the dumb things that people say and do, i think as the judge said, are cringe worthy sometimes. but then we've seen conspiracy theories spun up involving his calendar from 1982. now i admit, it's a little odd, i think, for anybody to have kept a daily calendar and still have it at age 53. but judge kavanaugh said that's what his dad did and it was a combination calendar and diary. so it tells us some of what he was doing at the time that we're concerned with. but i would suggest that this whole enterprise has gotten so

far afield from a search for the truth and become just a relentless, unhinged attempt to defeat the nomination, and in the process chew up and spit out the reputation of a good man. we know that these, this play has been telegraphed. our friends across the aisle made known their opposition would be equal parts merciless and relentless. months ago when the minority leader said he was going to oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. everything. well, apparently everything includes last-minute uncorroborated accusations made almost 40 years ago. everything involves refusing to

participate in the normal committee process, walking out of hearings, breaking the rules. it involves making loud baiting statements designed to incite people. it includes seeing some of our colleagues get hangers sent to their offices, chasing senators and their spouses from restaurants or through airports. not to mention delays and obstructions at every step along the way. here's what i really think needs to be understood. our colleagues across the aisle claim to be looking out for the victim. they claim to be on the side of empathy. but there's nothing empathetic about the cruelty that they have shown judge kavanaugh, his wife, and their children. there's nothing empathetic about presuming that somebody is

guilty without evidence. and there's nothing consistent about our colleagues who forget many of their standard refrains about our criminal justice system convicting too many people when the evidence is thin. some commentators call this our attic us finch moment, a famous novel by harper lee. we all remember that atticus finch was a lawyer that did not believe that a mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. he represented an unpopular person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because of his race and his race alone. we could learn from atticus finch now during this time when there has been such a vicious and unrelenting attack on the

integrity and good name of this nominee. what i find the most distressing is our colleagues that have engaged in this relentless and vicious attack express no remorse over violating dr. ford's wishes regarding confidentiality. they make no act of contrition about thrusting her into the spotlight and using her for partisan purposes or for recommending partisan lawyers to shepherd her along and withholding information from the judiciary committee and the f.b.i. for weeks on end. madam president, i've spent much of my career in elected office fighting to make sure that victims of sexual assault and domestic violence and human trafficking are never ignored, but at the same time i will never apologize for one second

for believing in the constitutional presumption of innocence and due process of law. one of the bedrock principles of our justice system. and that's because those principles are grounded in basic fairness and fair play. the spirit of that principle and the concept of due process applies to judge kavanaugh just as much as it does to any defendant taking a stand in any courtroom across this country. he has in fact been accused of a crime -- multiple crimes. i believe we will remember last week's hearings for years to come, and i'm sure history will ultimately judge all of us. but, in the meantime, we need to act. we've had more than enough time

to evaluate this nominee. the senate must do its job, and we will not be intimidated. this is about the principles we stand up for and defend. yes, sometimes even when it's unpopular. this vote that we will have beginning tomorrow is about upholding long-established constitutional principles and creating the right precedent, not establishing the wrong one. can you imagine if this orchestrated smear campaign and relentless effort to destroy this nominee is successful what kind of precedent that would set in the future? woe be to all of us and shame on all of us if we allow that to happen. this vote is about volume -- this vote is about validating years of reputable conduct.

it is not about dropping all of that based on unproven allegations. it is not about shifting with the turbulent winds. it is about what is just and not just what is popular in some circles. now the f.b.i. has submitted its supplemental background investigation. democrats and republicans are in the process of being briefed on that. having been briefed, i can tell you this -- nothing new, no witness can confirm any allegation against judge kavanaugh, and, as i said, judge kavanaugh has been investigated seven times now by the f.b.i. through background investigations where they've talked to 150 witnesses. so, madam president, it is time

to vote, and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting judge kavanaugh's nomination, starting with the cloture motion that we will vote on tomorrow morning. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without

objection. ms. duckworth: thank you. by the time dr. ford was sharing her story last thursday afternoon, i was heartbroken. then by the time judge kavanaugh was done speaking just a few hours later, i was horrified. dr. ford spent her time talking about the laughter she still hears ringing from her ears that night, that night that an older, drunker, stronger boy forced her to learn what it is like to feel helpless.

but her voice quivered. she herself never wavered, steadfast in the truth in the memory of the few moments that changed her life forever. judge kavanaugh, meanwhile, spent his time interrupting and attacking the committee members, shouting over senators, and dressing them down, appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would dare to keep him from getting what he feels entitled to, as though he or anyone is entitled to a seat on the united states supreme court. time after time, he made brazen ly political statements that should disqualify any candidate from serving as a federal judge. over and over again, he told what appeared to be blatant lies, despite being under oath. he seemed to have lied about the meaning of his yearbook page, about when he learned of some of the recent accusations, about what he knew at age 53 and what he did at 17. sadly, this was hardly even surprising. kavanaugh has a habit of appearing to lie under oath, as we know from from when he was questioned about his role in the bush administration's torture

policy back in 2006. this consistent dishonesty, this disregard, even distaste for the truth should be unacceptable in any judicial nominee, let alone one nominated to serve on the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment. and let's be clear. how republicans went about restricting the f.b.i. investigation this past week was questionable at best, safe italian at worst. -- sabotage at worst. but the reality that a suspiciously limited background check isn't enough to prove he was unfit. it was his inappropriate public outbursts and his lack of candor that are so deeply troubling, that should be so obviously disqualifying. this has nothing to do with his conservative beliefs. this has to do with the fact that the belligerent partisan operative who revealed himself last week is wholly unsuited for a job that demands levelheaded temperament. it's not just me saying that. it's a sentiment that some of kavanaugh's own former law clerks have expressed in the wake of his hostile outbursts.

no one is entitled to a supreme court seat, not even someone who went to yale college or law school, as he reminded us one, two, three, four times last thursday. and in this me too moment we're living through, we need to recognize the bravery it took for these women, dr. ford but also deborah ramirez to speak out, not deride them and shame them like some on the other side of the aisle and even the president is doing. the other night, trump stood in the middle of a political rally in mississippi and told joke after joke about dr. ford and the worst moment of her life. mocking a survivor, making fun of her trauma, rallying up thousands of people to laugh at her just like she says brett kavanaugh did in that bedroom that night. that makes me sick. it makes me furious. donald trump may sit in the oval office, but it's obvious he cannot live up to even the minimal standards of what we should expect of any president.

he doesn't even understand or care how cruel it is to try to bully a survivor back into the shadows. you know, i have two daughters. the younger was just born this april. the older abigail is nearly 4 years old now. her drawings line the walls of my senate office. her smile is the first thing i see in the morning. i just can't stop thinking about how dr. ford was also once that age. she, too, probably had her hair brushed and then braided by her mom. she, too, probably loved that too-big set of crayola crayons and proudly brought her mom drawing after drawing like my abigail does for me. i can't stop thinking about how that little girl just a decade later found herself cornered, outnumbered and scared, overpowered and terrified, hearing the boys' laughter that she will remember all these years later. i am quoting against brett kavanaugh because i believe dr. christine blasey ford, because i believe deborah

ramirez, because we need a nominee who won't cover up -- cover up, abet and lie about torture. but also because i know the american people deserve a fair-minded supreme court justice who actually cares about honesty and the truth. that's the bare minimum we should expect from a nominee to the supreme court, and brett kavanaugh can't even clear that low hurdle. and with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: