supreme court. they've been driven by the impulse to rush and conceal. but i want to commend my friend, senators jeff flake and chris coons for working together in good faith to demand more from this process. an investigation into the serious allegations of sexual misconduct by judge kavanaugh is a first step, but it should have happened weeks ago. until now, such investigations have been routine any time new derogatory information surfaces about a nominee. unfortunately, the investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any reasonable standard. but i think it fell short by design. we've already heard about many of its deficiencies from dr. ford, miss ramirez, numerous

other witnesses who attempted unsuccessfully, attempted unsuccessfully to share relevant information with the f.b.i. the senate republican leadership and the trump white house did everything in their power to ensure that this investigation was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover. the search for truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to interview dr. ford's husband and her therapist, both of whom have stated that dr. ford mentioned kavanaugh as her assaulter years ago. the search for truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to interview numerous high school and college classmates who have come forward saying they could provide information about judge kavanaugh's conduct during those years. it was consistent with the

allegations but also with contradict judge kavanaugh's sworn testimony. a search for truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting that he could help corroborate ms. ramirez's allegations. or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that judge kavanaugh tried to head off ms. ramirez's story before it became public. that was an apparent contradiction, total contradiction with his testimony before the judiciary committee. in fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to at least speak with julie swetnick, a third accuser. or a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to speak with mark judge's ex-girlfriend who recalled that mr. judge told

her ashamedly about a sexual incident that early mirrors both dr. ford's and miss swetnick's allegations. you know, there is no mistaking. this investigation was rigged by the white house and senate republicans. instead of calling on the f.b.i. to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably the republican-controlled judiciary committee solely tried to discredit these women. the committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of miss swetnick. this individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident and salaciously described the alleged sexual interests of miss swetnick. according to the national task

force to end sexual and domestic violence, one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on capitol hill, this shameless attempt to smear a victim violates the intent of the rape shield law. and to add to it, miss swetnick was never even interviewed by the f.b.i. she was ignored. she was silenced. then she was shamed. it's outrageous the way she was treated. republicans have also claimed that other individuals that dr. ford identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have refuted her testimony. well, that's just false. these individuals stated publicly they do not recall the event. as dr. ford told the judiciary committee, that's not surprising as it was a very unremarkable

party because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. yet, one of these individuals has said publicly that she believes dr. ford. after reviewing the f.b.i.'s report this morning, within minutes, republican senators claimed there was a lack of corroborating evidence for any of these allegations. and despite, despite the numerous restrictions they placed on this investigation, that claim is simply not true. but a pertinent fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation. that's basic, and this investigation falls far short. it's a disservice to dr. ford

and miss ramirez or miss swetnick. i go further to say it's a disservice to survivors anywhere in this country. dr. ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the nation and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. in a moment that i will never forget, when i asked her for her strongest memory, something from the incident she couldn't forget, she replied indelible is the laughter, the up roarious laughter between the two, as teenaged brett kavanaugh drunkenly pinned dr. ford down to the bed and attempted to sexually assault her.

i believe what she said. and the reason that a thorough independent investigation is so critical is not because we need additional proof that judge kavanaugh was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is bart o' kavanaugh who passed out from gunningenness. all of us here know he went telling the truth in his testimony about that. the reason we need a thorough investigation is that these women have offered credible cree accusations, they have identified credible evidence before the senate can snow all the facts before the accused is put on a lifetime appointment in the highest court. a thorough investigation is essential for another reason. we simply cannot take judge kavanaugh at his word.

our nation is big and small. any time judge kavanaugh has been faced with questions that would place him in the middle of a controversy, he surely cannot be trusted to tell the truth. every single time he's testified before the senate over the years, he has misled and dissembled. he misled the senate about his role in a hacking scandal for confirming controversial judicial nominees or in shaping the legal justifications for some of the bush administration's most extreme and now discredited policies. and his appearance before us last week was no different. in testimony that appeared to be a tirade, he angrily dismissed

dr. ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. his conspiratorial ramblings attributed allegations to revenge on behalf of the clintons or an unsult to dr. ford, but they are an insult to survivors of sexual violence across the country. he evaded as he always has under oath basic factual questions. it shows disdain for members of the committee who had the audacity to ask him about his behavior during the time of the allegations. now, my 44 years in the senate, i voted for more republican-appointed judges than almost all serving republican senators. that includes more than for chief justice roberts. but i have never seen such a

partisan performance by a nominee of either party to the supreme court or any other court. i have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in service of his own raw ambition. if truth under oath means anything at all, judge kavanaugh has disqualified himself over and over and over again. he has neither the veracity nor the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our nation. you know, the truth has an odd way of coming out one way or another. to avoid permanent damage to the integrity and legitimacy of our nation's highest court, i urge senators to join me in voting no on judge kavanaugh's nomination.

mr. president, i do not see somebody else seeking the floor, so i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: oons: are we currena

quorum call in. the presiding officer: we are. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that hanna smith be given floor permission for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, it was a week ago today that members of the senate judiciary committee on which i serve were riveted by the compelling and powerful testimony of dr. christine

blasey ford. it is a week ago today that judge brett kavanaugh delivered his forceful rejoinedder and rebuttal. but today i want to take a moment and share with members of this chamber and folks who may be watching something else that was happening during that entire hearing that i did not expect that was powerful and unique and special in my experience as a public servant and that i've heard as i've listened to other senators of both parties who were present and who i've talked to afterwards was their experience as well. this conversation is bigger. it's bigger, it's more pressing, and it's say it's more important than the question of one supreme court seat and one current nominee. this is a question about whether we as a country at the highest levels of power believe victims and survivors of sexual assault and are willing to listen to

them, to believe them, and to take action. so what was it that happened last thursday? as i tried to pay attention to the remarkable testimony of dr. ford, my phone was blowing up. i got texts. i got instant messages. i got phone calls. i got e-mails. i got facebook posts. i got messages from more ways you could connect with me that i knew were possible. and these were stories, powerful stories, stories that friends of mine, people i've known for years or decades, people i barely know or people i hope to get to meet. they were sharing with me stories of assault. they were told by classmates, neighbors, friends, constituents, people who had carried these burdens alone for

years. these stories are difficult to hear but important that they be heard. it is important to understanding why survivors stay silent. and it's important to understanding why we as a body and a nation must get this moment right. important to understanding why the president and others are wrong when they say that if a victim's allegations are true, she would have filed a report or come forward decades ago. in response to the question why didn't dr. christine blasey ford come forward earlier, i have just this experience to share. that the text and e-mails, the conversations in person and over the phone with friends i've known for so long and friends i've just met make it powerfully

clear to me that the many ways in which assault and violation happens in our country between people have as many different reasons why they hide them, carry them, and keep them in darkness, in quiet, and in shame. and each one of those stories reminds me even more powerfully the reasons we must -- we must demonstrate that they are hurt. one friend from delaware, a cancer survivor, someone i've spoken about on this floor before because of her survival of a nearly life-ending cancer, she confided in me. she was terrorized and raped as a small child. living with the effects of that experience, she said, has been way harder than cancer. she said to me early childhood trauma can be murky and difficult to describe and doesn't lend itself easily to a courtroom narrative

understanding. she is right. a male friend, someone i know from high school shared with me an experience he had during a spring break trip. shared how on a biology field trip to mexico when he sought help from the trip organizer after snorkeling fins blistering his ankles, after administering first aid in the hotel room he was assaulted. and his comment was he was too shocked to call for help and did not tell anyone for over three decades. you know, he is right. she is right. they are not alone. today i want to share a few more stories shared over the last weeks by brave men and women shining light on the challenges, the fear, the shame, and the anger surrounding sexual assault. this is under the hashtag why i

didn't report and i think it helps lend some understanding to the dynamics of surviving assault. under why i didn't report, i had known him for years, one victim said. why i didn't report? because he was sorry, because i was drunk, because i was young and ashamed and felt like i had somehow asked for it, even though i had said no and stop. because even typing this still makes me feel it all again. another in response to this hashtag said because my counselor said they won't believe you, because you're not a pretty girl. another said i blamed myself. i was humiliated and hurt. i thought they were my friends. i felt safe until i wasn't and

then it was too late. i wanted to wash it away and never think about it again. another said because i feel ashamed about what happened and did not want to publicly ruin someone's life even though they privately ruined mine. because he was my boyfriend and i was sleeping. he told me he'd been accused of this before and it wasn't rape because we were dating. another victim posted, my mom did report might 18-year-old cousin when i was 9. i had to testify sitting across the table from him. i froze. i cried. i couldn't speak. all charges were dropped. and earlier this week at a town hall in delaware, the delaware city fire company, someone i've known for decades got out of her

car, came up to me, gave me a huge hug and weeping said, i never told my husband. i never told my son. and today i have. and in her voice there was both heavy emotion and an enormous sense of relief. and i have to say for me, a sense of great pain that i was wishing i could do nothing except sit and listen, to honor her story, to provide some sense of comfort and support and recognition. and yet had to move on to the town hall after a few moments. at a dinner here in washington just last night, someone shared with me an amazing story of her daughter's suffering and take hear a story of that power and pain in the midst of a social setting is both wonderful in

that they are trusting with a story that they have held on to for so long and terrible in that it is a reminder of the ways in which we speak to each other of surviving assault in hush tones and in dark corners and on the internet and anonymously. whatever comes out this week, whatever comes out of the proceedings today on this floor, tomorrow, we must listen and hundreds of thousands of women and men have been victims, are victims, will be victims of sexual assault. and according to our department of justice, at least two-thirds have never reported it. there is is an ocean of pain in this nation not yet fully heard, not yet appropriately resolved, not yet fully addressed. and everyone, everyone, everyone within earshot of my voice, the

women and men in this chamber, the staff, journalists, colleagues, friends, members of the public, those who think brett kavanaugh should be a supreme court justice and those who do not, those who have either themselves been victimized by assault or know someone, a loved one, a family member, a neighbor, a classmate, a fellow parrisher, a colleague, -- parrishener, a colleague, a friend, we all have an opportunity here, a moment, to make it clear that we welcome and will respect and listen to and act on, stories that have been and will be shared with us and that we will act. if i could make one request. it would be that we come out on the other side of these last few

weeks with an awareness of those who are in silent and deep and lonely pain often right next to us, all around us in our families, in our churches, in our workplaces, and in our communities, and that we give them the listening, the understanding, and the embrace to help them heal. you know, in today's hyper partisan environment where we are quick to question motives of others and search for any excuse to discredit or devalue and doubt, i also wanted to add one small but i think important point. every victim who's spoken to me in the past week, they were not looking for anything. they were not looking for a settlement. they were not looking for some lawsuit. they were simply looking for acknowledgment. they were looking to share something they've carried too long alone. they just wanted to be heard.

our country is watching. this is a moment where the senate as an institution and the country as a whole need to show we can and will do better, and i hope we will listen, that we will listen as we continue to move forward important legislation, the violence against women act which my predecessor,then-senator biden helped champion in a bipartisan way over several congresses, the victims against child abuse act which even now i'm working with a bipartisan team to try to get through this chamber to be reauthorized. there are many more things we can and should do to work and combat sexual abuse, sexual assault and to help prevent and heal. but what i most wanted to say today, to the friends and the acquaintances, to my constituents and my community, to any nation and -- to my nation and the world that may well be watching this moment in the united states, to those

whose stories i just shared and whose stories i just heard, i simply wanted to say this. you have touched my heart deeply i hear you and i thank you. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this is the first time that i've come to the floor to speak on the nomination of brett kavanaugh since the events of the last several weeks, and i want to say this at the outset in the most dispassionate way that i can. i have come to the conclusion that brett kavanaugh is perhaps the most dangerous nominee for the supreme court in my lifetime, and i'm going to vote no tomorrow when a cloture vote comes before this senate. and let me be clear. i had decided to vote no before his confirmation hearing, before the allegations of sexual assault were levied against him, before his second confirmation hearing, before the f.b.i. refreshed its background check investigation. that doesn't mean that i wasn't

willing to do my due diligence. it's simply that his judicial record that i became familiar with as he was becoming known as one of the finalists for this selection was enough for me to decide that he wouldn't rule fairly on the questions before the court that affected the millions of people that i represent in connecticut. every year i take a walk across my state. it takes about five days. it's about 120 miles, give or take. it's a chance for me to conduct sort of a week-long running focus group where i can talk to hundreds of voters who frankly aren't plugged into politics on a daily basis. the people that i meet at gas stations and auto body shops, folks that are out walking their dog in the morning, they're part of the 98% of americans that don't watch sean hannity, anderson cooper or rachel maddow but they've got strong opinions

about what's happening in this country just like everybody else, and i'm glad that they share them with me. for the last two years since president trump took office, the number-one topic that people talk to me about during the walk is health care. people in connecticut, they're just scared about what they see is this coordinated effort that's underway in washington to take away their insurance coverage and the protections for people in my state that have preexisting conditions. folks in connecticut, they don't think the affordable care act is perfect. they want us to work on making it better. but they don't want us to end it without a plan for what's going to come next. they were glad when the repeal plan was defeated last year. but now they're worried that president trump is trying to use the courts to get done what he couldn't get done in the people's branch of government, the legislative branch. brett kavanaugh was vetted by two conservative political groups whose chief legislative priority is repealing the

affordable care act come hell or high water. the head of one of those groups said on television that it really didn't matter to him which of the names on the list trump picked because they all shared their group's priorities. and trump himself told the american public that he would never pick a judge like john roberts who voted to uphold the major parts of the affordable care act. kavanaugh, in his judicial writing, he's been hostile to the affordable care act. frankly, i'll just take the president's word for it. he picked brett kavanaugh to help him unwind judicially a law that he couldn't unwind legislatively, and that will have huge consequences on folks in my state who need insurance coverage for things like cancer, addiction, or mental illness. now while kavanaugh hasn't said a lot specifically on the affordable care's view

on choice they are pretty well known. as a lawyer in the bush white house, c kavanaugh went out of his way to note that roe v. wade isn't settled law, that it just takes five supreme court justices to get rid of it. as a circuit court judge he denied access to an abortion for a young immigrant girl even though she met the legal cry -- criteria to receive the procedure. he uses technology when talking about reproductive health care, he talks about abortion on demand. he called birth control an abortion-inducing drug. kavanaugh no doubt about it is going to vote to overturn roe v. wade. any senator who convinced himself otherwise is living in a fantasy world. the people i represent in connecticut don't want the supreme court of the united states telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies. the judicial doctrine of privacy comes from a connecticut case, gris world -- griswold v.

connecticut. in my state we prefer judges stay out of our private business. finally, when i'm walking across the state of connecticut, i'm talking an awful lot about the issue of gun violence. it's not just that the murder of 20 little first graders in sandy hook still hangs heavy over connecticut, it's that the murders in hart ford, new haven and bridgeport and suicides across our state continue unabated. it's not like everybody i meet when i'm walking across the state agrees with me on what we should do. when you walk east to west, you spend half your time in eastern connecticut, the part of the state where people love their guns and i get into spirited arguments about gun permits. but what there's relative agreement on is that it's our choice on how we should regulate guns. here's where judge kavanaugh's views really, really get outside the mainstream. his testimony before the judiciary committee suggests he's a second amendment radical believing that almost all

restrictions on gun ownership are likely unconstitutional. here's a for instance. he stated in his testimony that so long as a weapon is in regular commercial use, it can never ever be banned. that's a recipe for disaster because all you need then is a very short period of legalization of saw, automatic weapons followed by a few years of robust commercial sales and then that gun has permanent constitutional protection forever. that's absurd, but that's brett kavanaugh's view on the second amendment. so what i'm saying is this, i didn't need the tragic drama of the last few weeks to know how i felt about brett kavanaugh serving on the supreme court. i was an early no vote and i don't apologize for coming to that conclusion months ago. but that doesn't mean that i'm not entitled to have a strong opinion on what has played out before the eyes of america

during the month of september, and it doesn't mean that i don't have the right to make the argument here that for those in the senate who weren't as sure as i was that what happened in the last 30 days should be dispositive on the future of this nomination. i said at the outset that i thought brett kavanaugh is the most dangerousnominee to the court in my lifetime. that opinion is one i only arrived at after hearing his testimony before the committee last week. and i think it's really important for senators to understand the pandora's box they are opening by voting yes, endorsing his performance, his demeanor, and what i would argue is maybe most important, his bias. let me say first that i don't believe any democrat should defend the way in which christine blasey ford's allegations were brought to light. i don't know who leaked the contents of that letter. i think it's fair to guess it

was somebody that didn't want brett kavanaugh confirmed. now dr. ford should have controlled her story or at least the ranking member of the committee to whom she entrusted it should have controlled that story. the timing of its release, listen, it just sucked. something that explosive, that serious, it shouldn't be shoved into debate at the very last minute. but here's the thing. the way in which the substance is revealed does not change the substance. yet, it may give you reason to be angry about the way in which it was made known. it may make you suspicious of the motivations of the person who did it. but the method doesn't alter the substance. the substance is dr. ford's very credible account of a sexual assault carried out against her by somebody who wants to be on the supreme court. and let me be clear, there's really no reason not to believe dr. ford, and plenty of

republicans admitted to this after she came before the committee. she disclosed the incident well before kavanaugh was nominated. she was composed, credible and thoughtful in her testimony. and why on earth would she put her and her family through this horror if not because she's telling the truth? and though i believe dr. ford, you frankly don't even have to be sure she's telling the truth to decide that the risk of nominating someone with these kind of serious charges swirling around them is an unnecessary burden for this body or the judicial system to bear. there's a chance -- if there's a chance he did these things, just move on to the next eligible conservative candidate. so these charges bother me greatly. but what truly shook me about kavanaugh's testimony, and the speeches frankly that many of my republicans colleagues delivered on this floor since is the idea

proffered by judge kavanaugh is that these charges are simply a result of a clinton-connected conspiracy theory. let me read to you what he said last thursday, quote, when i did at least okay enough at the hearing that it look like i might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.÷ some ofe lying in wait. the whole two-week effort has been a calculated hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 and revenge on behalf of the collins. come on. listen. i'm telling you i don't like how this information was released to the press. i'm not trying to be a blind partisan here. but to believe and then to publicly claim that this is some

larger organized effort by democrats who purposefully held back this allegation until the last minute is to reveal to america your true political bias. there was no conspiracy. there was no orchestrated smear campaign. listen, if that was our m.o., why didn't we use it on neil gorsuch when there was more anger on our side because that was the seat that should have been america garland's. why didn't we use fake allegations against the president's cabinet nominees who had more anger in 2016 than brett kavanaugh did in the summer and fall of 2018. it just doesn't make sense because it's made up. there's zero facts behind it. and for a nominee to the supreme court to believe such a

far-fetched story and then to angrily warn democrats that what goes around comes around, it's one of the most astonishing unveiling of political bias that i ever witnessed from a nominee asking for the support of the united states senate. and that has serious long-term consequences for us as a republic. because if used to matter that in the midst of all of our political heated debates here that there were at least nine people in america who americans could creditably believe didn't care about our usually petty political partisan fights. there were nine people that americans could believe were above it all, and now we are on the verge of perhaps sending someone to the supreme court who called democrats embarrassments

and who warned his political opponents menacingly that we will reap what we sow. i don't really know what that means, but i'm sure that i know that i don't want a nominee to the supreme court saying anything like that. now, the fight over the kennedy seat, it was going to be controversial and contentious. there was no way around that, but it didn't need to go down like this. it didn't mean to marginalize victims to politicize the supreme court like this nomination has. and add to the conspiratorial beliefs, the hatred oozing from him toward democrats that day is the likelihood that this nominee was also lying over and over again about, at the very least, relatively small things for which he had really little reason not to tell the truth. i'm sorry, i know this sound

trivial talking about things like a delaware vil's -- devil's triangle. but is it not too much to ask that a nominee for the supreme court tell you the truth about even the small embarrassing stuff. even if you believe -- if you don't believe dr. ford, why would you put someone on the court that has a habit of fibbing. this is the supreme court. it comes down to an important question for me. why did republicans stick with brett kavanaugh given all of this when republicans could have just sent him back to the president and brought before this body another really conservative judge who would have regularly sided with the right side of the court? this process isn't a trial, it's a job interview, and not a

single one of us would hire someone into our office if credible allegations were attached to that person or if they conducted themselves in an in-person interview the way that brett kavanaugh did on thursday. seriously. think of that. not a single senator would willingly hire a person with these questions surrounding him or her. but we're here with a vote pending in a matter of hours. i just came from that secure briefing room where i was force fed a half-baked f.b.i. investigation that i was told i had to read and digest in no more than an hour. it was it was humiliating. i felt like i was 9 years old, but that humiliation was sort of the capstone for me on explaining why we are still moving forward on brett kavanaugh. at least it helps me fill out the details of my theory of the

case, and i'll end here. listen. i get it that it's really hard to be a republican today. i mean that sincerely. the things that the republican party used to stand for have been obliterated by this president. the grand old party has become the party of trump. there's only a thread of ideology between this administration and congressional republicans. republicans are much more so organized now around a cult of personality. and i know many of my republican colleagues are really uncomfortable about this. without this unifying set of ideas that combine the president and congressional republicans, i fear that you are using this nomination to cling to the one thing left that you can agree on, and that is the methodical, complete domination of your political opponents.

on social media they call it owning the lips because why else would you stick with this nominee other than you just want to shove down the throats of democrats this deeply flawed nominee? why else try to railroad through his nomination without a background check and when you're forced to do one, humiliate us by turning out a product that raises more questions than it answers. i wish the answer was that you all think that brett kavanaugh was worth it. he's just that important a jurist, that serious a thinker to do whatever it takes to get him on to the court. but i don't think that's what republicans believe. and so we're left searching for the real reason why we're having a vote tomorrow. i don't hate my republican colleagues.

i don't have any interest in dominating them or getting my way just to get my way. and i wish i could explain this process, especially over the last few weeks, through any other prism than the desire by republican leadership to simply bury democrats into the ground. i hate the way this is played out. i hate the lateness of the revelation. i hate the rush job of an investigation. i hate the inability to recognize that none of us, democrats or republicans, are obligated to stand by a nominee that's got real questions about his history and his impartiality just because the president likes him. this is not right. none of this is right. and the elevation of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court filled with hatred towards democrats and our allies, surrounded by legitimate questions about his fitness for office is totally unnecessary

even to try to accomplish the political aims of my republican friends in the majority. and in the end, most importantly, the way in which this has been done is deeply, deeply hurtful to the unity of our great nation. thank you, mr. president. and i yield. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, last week millions of people were glued to their screens as dr. christine blasey ford testified before the senate judiciary committee.

dr. ford's account of the most traumatic event of her life was harrowing. the pain of retelling this story was evident, and she did it for no personal gain whatsoever. in fact, her life has been turned upside down as a result of the decision to come forward. the courage she showed was remarkable. her testimony was credible and compelling. i believed dr. ford. judge kavanaugh's testimony, very different. he spent more than 40 minutes ranting, raving, and peddling fact-free party conspiracy theories, then he insulted senators and screamed at people who had the nerve to question him. he evaded some questions and gave obviously false answers to others. it would have been a performance right at home on talk radio or a republican primary campaign or a trump rally, but it was delivered by a judge who is asking the united states senate

to confirm him to a lifetime appointment to a completely nonpolitical position as the swing vote on the united states supreme court. it is the job of the senate to decide whether or not to confirm judge kavanaugh. senators must vote yes or vote no on elevating him to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. it is not a criminal trial. nobody is entitled to a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. if he is not confirmed, brett kavanaugh would still be serving as a federal judge as the second-highest court in the united states. and the president, i am sure, will nominate another candidate for this job. for these reasons i believe that dr. ford's credible allegations and judge kavanaugh's partisan, venomous rant are sufficient reasons to vote no on his nomination. now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saw the same hearing had they've watched dr. ford sit through hours of

testimony. they heard her when she clearly and unequivocally said she was 100% sure that brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, and they watched judge kavanaugh dmn straight to the world -- demonstrate to the world that he lacks the temperament and the truthfulness to sit on the nation's highest court. for those senators who don't care that judge kavanaugh thinks that multiple sexual assault allegations he faces must be, quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons who aren't sure sufficient to vote no and would like to see more evidence, the sensible court of action -- course of action has always been obvious, a serious, nonpartisan f.b.i. investigation to uncover the truth as best we can to make sure we are as informed as we can be before we have to vote, but that is not what has happened. first, instead of taking

dr. ford seriously, mitch mcconnell scheduled the committee vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination the next day. he suspended the senate vote only when it became clear that republicans would not have the votes they needed if they tried to ram the nomination through the senate right at that moment. then the president offered the smallest fig leaf of an f.b.i. investigation. now, i have just come from the secure room where the summaries of f.b.i. interviews and other f.b.i. generated documents were made available. senators have been muzzled so i will now say three things that committee staff have explained are permissible to say without violating committee rules, statements that i have also independently verified as accurate. one, this was not a full and fair investigation. it was sharply limited in scope and did not explore the relevant confirming facts.

two, the available documents do not exonerate mr. kavanaugh. and three, the available documents contradict statements mr. kavanaugh made under oath. i would like to back up these three points with explicit statements from the f.b.i. documents. explicit statements that should be available for the american people to see. but the republicans have locked the documents behind closed doors with no plans to inform the american public of any new information about the kavanaugh nomination. the kavanaugh nomination was a sham and that's the president's fault because the president is the one who limited the scope of this investigation, who refused to allow it to continue for more than a few days, and who refused to ensure that the f.b.i. completed a thorough investigation, including interviews with all relevant

witnesses. the statements the president made about the scope of the investigation were false, and if that wasn't bad enough, the president has viciously attacked dr. ford for bravely coming forward to tell her story. how could any senator accept this sham? it's clear the fix is in. republicans want to confirm judge kavanaugh to the supreme court, and they will ignore, suppress, or shout down any inconvenient facts that might give the american people pause about this nomination. republicans are playing politics with the supreme court, and they are willing to step on anyone, including the victim of a vicious sexual assault, in order to advance their agenda. judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the highest court in our country is the result of a decades-long assault on our judiciary launched by billionaires and giant corporations who want to control

every branch of government. for years those wealthy and well-connected people have invested massive sums of money into shaping our courts to fit their liking. working in partnership with their republican buddies in congress, they have executed a two-part campaign to capture our courts. part one, stop fair-minded, mainstream judges from getting confirmed to serve in the federal courts. and part two, flood federal courts with narrow-minded, pro-corporate individuals who will tilt the courts in favor of the rich and powerful and against women, workers, people of color, low-income americans, lgbtq individuals, people with disabilities, native americans, students, and everyone who doesn't have money or power right here in washington. with trump in the white house and congress controlled by

republicans, the wealthy and well-connected have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to control our courts for the next generation. during his presidential campaign, president trump made clear that right-wing procorporate groups would not only have a voice in selecting supreme court justices, they would get to hand-pick their favorites. so those groups handed him a list of their topics for the supreme court, and president trump has picked judges exclusively from that list. his most recent selection is judge brett kavanaugh. now there are a lot of reasons to oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination. i want to discuss three of them. his record, the broken and biased confirmation process, and the allegations of sexual assault. let's start with judge kavanaugh's record. judge kavanaugh has spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court. his rulings demonstrate why radical right-wing groups and

their friends in the senate are so eager to give him a seat on the supreme court. pick an issue, almost any issue, and there is ample reason to be alarmed. a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. when the donald trump sought to block a young immigrant woman's right to access abortion care, judge kavanaugh sided with the government, claiming that allowing the woman who had done everything necessary to obtain access to an abortion, should be further delayed in obtaining that care, a delay that would likely have prevented her from obtaining an abortion. and when religious organizations challenged the contraceptive care requirement of the affordable care act, judge kavanaugh again opposed reproductive care, arguing that requiring religious nonprofits to submit a simple form allowing them to opt out of providing comprehensive contraceptive coverage but ensuring that the

employees had access to that care was unconstitutional. on consumer protection, judge kavanaugh ruled that the consumer financial protection bureau, the agency that stands up for americans cheated by corporate criminals, is unconstitutional. on environmental safety, he has h ruled to overturn the rules that help keep dangerous toxins out of the air we breathe and the water we drink. on voting rights, he upheld south carolina's discriminatory voter i.d. laws. on gun safety, he dissented from an opinion upholding an assault weapons ban and a gun registration requirement. in speeches on gun safety, he admitted that most lower court judges disagree with his extreme position on second amendment. on money and politics, he wrote an opinion that would permit foreign individuals to spend unlimited sums of money on issue

ads in united states elections. oh, and when it comes to presidential power and the rule of law, judge kavanaugh believes that sitting presidents shouldn't be subjected to personal, civil, or criminal investigations while they're in office. you know, that is very convenient for the current occupant of the oval office. and that's just the part of judge kavanaugh's record that we know about. and that raises the second reason that judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the supreme court. the secretive process that republicans have used to advance his nomination, from the moment president trump announced judge kavanaugh's nomination, republicans have worked overtime to get him on the supreme court without getting senators or the american people a meaningful opportunity to examine hill full record. senate republicans have played an elaborate game of hide the ball at every step in this process.

judge kavanaugh spent many years in government, but the republicans have refused even to request hundreds of thousands of documents from his time in service. they have designated other documents as, quote, committee confidential to hide them from the public. and to top it off, just days before judge kavanaugh was scheduled to come before the senate judiciary committee, a bush white house attorney announced that over 100,000 documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house counsel's office would be withheld on the basis of constitutional privilege. you know, a few years ago president obama nominated elena kagan to the supreme court. like judge kavanaugh, she had participated in public office. she had served. but unlike the kavanaugh confirmation process, the kagan process included the release of nearly document related to her

time in service. in fact, no one has found an example of so much of a nominee's record in government being hidden from the senate and hidden from the public as in judge kavanaugh's case. the rushed and secretive process that has characterized judge kavanaugh's nomination raises this question: what is he hiding? why doesn't he insist that his record be made public? why doesn't he want a full investigation of the sexual assault claims made against him? and why won't republicans insist on transparency and a meaningful investigation? evidently neither judge kavanaugh nor the senate republicans care about the facts. judge kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple women. dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez shared their stories of sexual assault at the hands of judge kavanaugh and

risked their safety and the safety of their families to do so. neff making sure that these allegations are thoroughly investigated so that senators and the public can make judgments based on facts, republicans launched a campaign to attack and discredit these courageous women. donald trump openly mocked dr. ford at a political rally, and the republicans have made clear that their one and only goal is to get judge kavanaugh on the supreme court. in fact, just last week mitch mcconnell told a group of conservatives -- and i'm quoting here -- don't get rattled by all this. we're going to plow right through it. plow right through? really? americans are tired of the powerful plowing right through every one else to get what they want. there's a reason why so many

women and men have come out in droves to support dr. ford and ms. ramirez. it's because people are tired of being ignored and silenced. judge kavanaugh and his republican sponsors don't want to talk about the facts in this case. but let's talk about a few other facts. over 80% of women and 40% of men have experienced sexual harassment or assault. seven out of ten sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows. the vast majority of sexual assaults, about two out of three, are never reported to the police. and why? because survivors fear retaliation. or they believe the police won't or can't do anything to help. or they think it's a personal matter. or they confide in someone other than the police. or they believe it's not serious enough to report. or they don't want to get the perpetrator in trouble. last week as dr. ford testified

before congress, the national sexual assault hotline saw a 147% increase in calls from people seeking help. we have a problem of sexual harassment and sexual violence in america. the problem isn't that too many victims are coming forward with fabricated stories to destroy someone's life. it's that too many survivors are afraid to come forward at all. they believe they won't be heard or taken seriously. or they think more about the safety of the perpetrator than their own well-being or they think that people with power, the ones that can actually do something, will instead plow right through them. we never hear stories the millions of sexual assault survivors, but some make the very difficult and personal decision to come forward and tell their stories. they, like all survivors, are

courageous, and they deserve to be heard and treated with respect. not dismissed, not attacked, not threatened. the record, the process, the allegations, whichever way you slice this, it should lead to only one result. members of this chamber should vote no on nudge. our country deserves better. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, thank you for the recognition. mr. president, first let me begin by saying this. i believe dr. christine blasey ford. her raw courage coming forward will change the national culture and discussion. she has given voice to millions of women and men who are survivors of sexual assault, who are afraid to tell their stories, who felt powerless. some of these women have

contacted my office with their own stories. i have read them, and they are heart wrenching. at its core, sexual assault is a crime of power. dr. ford has confronted some of the most powerful in our nation and told the truth. i thank her for her courage in coming forward and for empowering other survivors to do the same. mr. president, at this point with so much unknown, there are serious consequences to elevating judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. we the senate need to continue our search for the truth about this nominee, his background and his record, and hopefully we can do that in a bipartisan way. yet, everything about the nomination process for this

nominee has been deeply flawed, from the president outsourcing the nomination to the federalist society, to the majority leader violating his own new rule to delay consideration of a supreme court nominee until after an upcoming election, to a highly partisan lawyer screaming judge kavanaugh's documents for public disclosure instead of the nonpartisan national archives staff. to the judiciary chair's rush to hearing, even though only 7% of judge kavanaugh's record is in the public domain. what are they trying to hide? i think we have a pretty good idea. and finally, and most disturbing, the president and the majority's inexcusable

treatment of the brave women who have come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee. the republican leader's claim to want to hear the allegations of sexual assault has been nothing but a cynical show of public consumption. a cynical show for public consumption. the me too movement forced them to open the testimony for dr. ford but the testimony was never really going to matter to president trump and the republican leadership. the majority leader made that clear when he bragged to an audience of the religious right before her hearing that, and i quote here, in the very near future judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. end quote. republican leaders question why the allegations hadn't come

forward sooner, but the reasons why survivors of sexual assault often don't come forward is well documented and well understood, and they did everything they could to undermine getting to the truth of dr. ford's allegations from refusing to honor her request for an f.b.i. investigation prior to her hearing to severely limiting the democrats' time for questions of judge kavanaugh before the senate judiciary committee, to refusing to call other key witnesses like mark judge, deborah ramirez, and others, and to put them under oath, and it is absolutely stunning that all 11 republicans on the committee be a i abdicated their responsibilities and ducked public scrutiny by bringing in a female prosecutor to do their job and question

dr. ford. it's just plain political cowardness. women in new mexico and around the country are watching. mr. president, again, after hearing her testimony and reviewing the record, i believe dr. ford. it's worth noting that no republican senator has said she is not credible, not a single one has said she's not credible. the majority whip stated, and i quote here, i find no reason to find her not credible. end quote. the president found her testimony, and i quote here, very compelling that she was a very credible witness, end quote. although true to form, the president changed political course and insulted and mocked her in front of a laughing crowd and television cameras. yet another shameful new low for the president's treatment of

women. dr. ford's testimony was all the more compelling because she was able to expert i will explain how -- expertly explained how the memory of the assault was in her mind. her memory of her assailant is fully in tact. it insults dr. ford and survivors generally to say, like republicans have, that you believe something happened to her but that it wasn't brett kavanaugh. dr. ford is not mixed up, and contrary to what the republicans would tell you, there is strong corroborating evidence behind her allegations. years before this nomination she had told her husband, a therapist, and friends of the attack, and her polygraph

examination supports her truthfulness. her story even matches an entry in judge kavanaugh's calendar in a number of ways, identifying the attendees she would have no reason to know. there is a narrow window where it's possible that both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh are telling the truth, and that is if judge kavanaugh does not remember it as a result of his consumption of alcohol that evening. but judge kavanaugh's performance during the supplemental hearing, while loud and angry, was not convincing. you can't find dr. ford's testimony credible and at the same time push to put judge kavanaugh on the court. the burden of proof for a lifetime appointment to our highest court is not beyond reasonable doubt. the senate and the american people must have a high degree

of certainty that there was no sexual assault and that the nominee didn't lie about it under oath. we have no certainty on either count. the supplemental hearing brought judge kavanaugh's overall credibility even further into question. while he denied reports of heavy alcohol use during high school and college, there are abundant reports in the press and statements from many eyewitnesses to the contrary. numerous acquaintances, even friends have come forward with information that he often drank to excess during these years. his own yearbook quotes allude to, brag about heavy drinking and exploits with girls. with all of these accounts of

heavy drinking from an array of different credible sources who have nothing to gain by coming forward, it is hard to believe there is no truth to them. evidence of excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior as a teenager and young adult is not disqualifying in and of itself, but misleading congress and the american people is. most troubling is that there was already evidence before us that judge kavanaugh has not been fully truthful. we know that when judge kavanaugh worked as white house lawyer on george w. bush -- under george w. bush, senate republican judiciary staff stole confidential information from democratic senators and staff and they gave some of that stolen information to him. judge kavanaugh denied under oath that he knew the information was stolen, but if you read the e-mail

correspondence, it is nearly impossible to believe that a sophisticated political operative, like brett kavanaugh was, would not have understood that the information had been obtained. there were also valid concerns that judge kavanaugh misrepresented during his 2004 confirmation hearing about his involvement with the george w. bush torture policy and with certain judicial nominations he handled as white house counsel. his sworn testimony in 2004 and the two recent hearings leave me highly skeptical that judge kavanaugh has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth before congress. i cannot support a nominee to the supreme court without a high degree of certainty that he or she has been 100% honest under

oath. the integrity and reputation of the supreme court demand nothing less. the rushed judiciary hearing with dr. ford and judge kavanaugh was designed to appease and not to make sure the american people had all the facts. senator flake was right to stop the process and call for an f.b.i. investigation. he is right that this nomination is tearing the country apart. the american people needed to know the truth. all relevant evidence should have been gathered and put before us. senator flake is a friend, and i commend him for standing up for what he thought was right, but an artificially limited f.b.i. investigation will do nothing to bring this country back together. justice could have only been served with a full investigation with the f.b.i. allowed to do

their job as they know how to do it, but with the results of the f.b.i. investigation in, it is clear that the president, with the senate leadership in full support, imposed arbitrary limits on the scope and length of the investigation. dr. ford has not been spoken to. her corroborating witnesses were not contacted, her corroborating documents not reviewed. there was no meaningful inquiry whether judge kavanaugh misrepresented his past alcohol use, which also corroborates dr. ford's story. up to 40 witnesses tried to come forward, but f.b.i. agents did not contact or interview them. while we can all read their statements in the newspapers, their information won't form part of the f.b.i. investigation record. there's been no partisan

briefing where senators can ask f.b.i. leaders about the adequatey of the investigation. the f.b.i. investigation was not allowed to be a real investigation, and given what is in the public record but kept away from the f.b.i. it by no means exonerates judge kavanaugh. without a real investigation, the cloud of credible allegations remains. the president and republican leaders were simply not on a search for the truth. only a mad dash to get judge kavanaugh confirmed at any cost to the country. folks, it's 2018. we are 27 years beyond clarence thomas' hearings, yet credible claims of sexual assault against a nominee to the supreme court are not taken seriously by the

president of the united states or the republicans in the united states senate. the roughshod process orchestrated by the senate majority and the president delegitimate miezs the -- delegitimatizes the claims of a woman who is a victim of sexual and only serves to drive survisier under -- advisors under ground and this will delegitimatize the supreme court. during the supplemental hearing, judge kavanaugh showed himself as partisan, plij rant, even -- belligerent, and even paranoid and lacking in judicial temperament. he rudely shot back at senators asking him about their drinking habits. he accused members of the

minority of misdeeds for which he had no evidence. he blamed revenge by the clintons for the predicament he is in. he lacks self-control, dignity and the temperament of a supreme court justice. his partisanship and lack of political independence were on full display. i have never seen a nominee to a federal court, let alone the supreme court, behave in such a manner before the senate. under pressure judge kavanaugh did not show himself worthy to appointment to the highest court. this is not a partisan conspiracy, as judge kavanaugh claimed. we saw no such allegations for judge gorsuch's nomination, a judicial candidate who shares a similar judicial philosophy to judge kavanaugh and coincidentally went to the same high school. there were no unsavory

allegations against judge scalia or judge alito, two judges that democrats oppose based on their right-wing, pro-dark money ideology. elevation to the supreme court for a lifetime appointment is not a right, it's a privilege. and while the republicans take great umbrage that judge kavanaugh's reputation is at take, the fact -- at stake, the fact is we have before us credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct and justice demands that he be called to answer those allegations. he should not get a pass. mr. president, i reviewed -- i've reviewed judge kavanaugh's decisions, writings, and speeches, all his testimony before the senate judiciary committee, the meager set of documents made available when he served as a white house lawyer and as part of the independent

counsel kenneth starr's investigation. on the merits this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial thought. he is on the extreme edge, but the american people want a justice whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a justice who is not on the far end of the ideological spectrum, who will not put his or her personal beliefs before the text of the statute or constitutional provision at issue. even before the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, the american people opposed this nomination in unprecedented numbers. i, like the american people, have no confidence this nominee will uphold our rights of privacy, a woman's right to choose, and each individual's right to marry whomever they

want. i have no confidence that this nominee will uphold americans' rights to health care, consumers' rights to a fair deal, or laws that protect our environment and combat climate change. i have no confidence that this nominee will protect minority rights and the rights of native peoples in particular. or will uphold voting rights, strike down gerrymandered voting districts that undermine the principle of one person, one vote. or rein in dark money that erodes our democracy. and as the nation faces the distinct possibility that special counsel robert mueller's investigation will find evidence that the president or his campaign conspired with russia to undermine the 2016 presidential election, evidence that the president obstructed the special counsel's investigation or evidence of

other crimes. i have absolutely no confidence that this nominee will hold the president to account if called to do so. judge kavanaugh is on record. it is a matter of policy that he believes a sitting president should be immune from criminal investigation while in office, no matter the crime. and he has refused to tell the senate and the american people whether he believes that. as a matter of constitutional law, a sitting president may be investigated and indicted. i, for one, believe that under the constitution, if a president commits a crime, the rule of law still stands, that the constitution gives no immunity to a president who is a criminal. this nomination will shape the course of the supreme court and american law and lives for decades. we must have a nominee who has

been fully vetted, who does not stand credibly accused of sexual assault, whose honesty before the senate and the american people cannot be questioned, whose judicial record fits within mainstream jurisprudence, and who believes that no one -- not even the president -- is above the law. judge kavanaugh is not that nominee. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. this is the first time that i have had the opportunity to address my colleagues on the senate floor since i was

appointed to fill the seat of our late friend and colleague john mccain. and i appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of great importance, both to this body and to the people of the united states of america -- namely, the confirmation of brett kavanaugh as associate justice to the united states supreme court. i'd like to address this in five general areas beginning with a couple of preliminary areas of discussion. the first concerns my work right after i came to the senate in 1995 to try to adopt a constitutional amendment for the victims of crimes -- the crimes victims right amendment. i am aquitely aware of the crimes that crime victims face, particularly those who have suffered some type of sexual

abuse. with research, and a great deal of reading, and hearing from victims groups, law enforcement and others, i became convinced that the only way that we could guarantee the rights of these victims and to bring justice to them would be through the adoption of a constitutional amendment -- doing so. i worked with senator dianne feinstein -- the two of us joined together in the this effort -- and we spent countless hours and many, many months trying to persuade our colleagues that this was the way to proceed. eventually, we were able to get legislation through the senate which established a federal law rather than a constitutional amendment, and this federal law, which is now embodied in 18u.s.c.3771, has provided some support to victims of federal crime and, as importantly, a template for states to develop their own statutes and

constitutional amendments to provide rights to victims. as a result of all of this, mr. president, i am well aware of the issues like delay in or non-reporting of assaults by crime victims, and i very much appreciate the need to be lenient in evaluating the testimony of such victims. rights like the need to attend proceedings and to address the court at the time of sentencing appeared to be notified of these rights were included in the statute we got adopted. those rights are now part of a majority of the states of the union either in statute or constitution. the recognition of the rightful role of victims in our criminal justice system cannot only help provide courage and closure to victims of sexual assault. it thereby also helps prosecutors gain critical system so that more of the perpetrators can brought to justice.

there are some insensitive people that are not aware of the difficulties faced by victims of sexual abuse and you've heard some of them speak publicly. what is not true is that all men are ignorant of the problem. senator feinstein and i met many men in the victims rights movement who are extraordinarily helpful and understanding. i don't ask anyone to establish their bonafides to speak to these issues and i would hope none question mine. to the second point, some have asked me about my time in helping judge kavanaugh as a sea who have called sherpa. this was part of his early confirmation, a process where he was interviewed by a majority of the senators and tried to answer their questions and also to respond to the requests for information and the like. just before his nomination was announced by the president, don

mcgahn, the white house counsel, called me in arizona and asked if i would serve as the sherpa for the nominee, the person to get him around the senate, introduce him to the senators, follow up on any questions and so on, and i agreed to do that. and i also participated in some of the hearing preparation. this all occurred over about a five-week period of time. during this time i was employed part-time as a washington, d.c., law firm, about i want to be very clear that my insistence to judge kavanaugh was on my own time, free of charge, and in no way connected to the firm or any client of the firm. it was not a pro bono matter because i didn't represent judge kavanaugh. it was simply to help him prepare for his hearing and to get him around the senate to meet the senators and to talk to them. when i was appointed after about five weeks of this roughly -- i was appointed by arizona's governor to senator mccain's seat here in the senate. and i immediately resigned from the firm and all other

remunerativepologieses and ceased working with judge kavanaugh. i should also mention that during this time i performed no lobbying work for my law firm or for any clients of the firm and i so notified the secretary of the senate and the clerk of the house. finally, mr. president, at no time during my work with judge kavanaugh did any allegation of sexual impropriety arise. the ford allegation came afterward and nothing was discussed about that during my work with him. i hope that satisfies the inquiries. i also want to just conclude this part of the presentation by saying that having sat through over 50 interviews, heard the questions asked of him and his responses, many of them repetitious and helped him to prepare for his hearing, i really believe i've got a very good idea of how he would conduct himself as an associate justice on the u.s. supreme

court. that, after all, mr. president, is the most important question before us. so the third area of inquiry gets to judge kavanaugh as justice kavanaugh. the first thing to do is to examine his qualifications and experience. this is ordinarily where we begin in our inquiry to provide advice and consent to the president after a nominee. a graduate of yale law school, clerkships on both the ninth circuit court of appeals and the united states supreme court under justice kennedy, he's been described as wicked smart and extraordinarily hardworking. he went over this on numerous occasions, discussing his early service on the court of appeals where he wanted to emulate judge merrick garland, whom we've heard something about. merrick garland is a prodigious worker by reputation. judge kavanaugh saw that and did

his best to follow in his footsteps in that regard. else a had a huge output in cases. i believe 312 written opinions over his 12 years on the bench, and in addition to that, outside the court, law review articles, speeches, and many presentations to groups. he also lectures at the harvard law school. and regarding his previous experience, it also includes, as we know, a previous experience in the executive branch, both as a lawyer and as an assistant to the president. and all of this -- in all of this, by the way, he was required to undergo six separate f.b.i. checks. his qualifications have been reviewed by the american bar association, which is just onent that i looks at judicial nominees and is generally deemed to be an organization that studies records, goes into deputy in interviewing people,

and they concluded that he had the top rating -- well qualified -- to serve on the supreme court. he is, as some have described, a judge's judges a real standout on the bench. people would have been surprised if he were not someday nominated to serve on the supreme court. he's also been recommended by law professors and former clerks and hundreds of people who have written letters in his behalf. and i no note that many of -- and i note that many of these are democrats. they're not necessarily all conservatives or republicans. he is well-regarded by virtually everyone who has had connection with him either in his profession or as a member of the bench. the next question that we go to in evaluating a nominee to a court is their judicial philosophy. how do they approach the job of judging? how will they decide cases? is now now, i first want to say what judge kavanaugh is not. he made it crystal clear in many

meetings in which i sat with him discussing with senators. he's not a results-oriented judge. he doesn't decide when the parties come before the court who he wants to win and then figure out a way to help that party win the case. that is not the right way to evaluate a case before the court, and he is not that kind of judge. he is a judge that wants to apply the law in the right way and to reach the decision that the law requires based upon precedent, based upon the way that the constitution or, if appropriate, statutes are to be interpreted in order to reach the right result in the case. one of my colleagues on the judiciary committee i think got us off on the wrong foot -- or tried to get us off the on the

wrong foot in this regard. he can a i am to one of the hearings with a presentation -- he came to one of the hearings with a presentation on how many times judge kavanaugh allegedly ruled for corporations over individuals and concluded that this was an important factor in determining whether judge kavanaugh should sit on the supreme court. and i think this does illustrate the mind-set of many -- who did you rule for rather than how did you rule in the case? this is totally wrong and it's irrelevant to the way judges should decide cases. theoretically, if ten plaintiffs bring ten spurious lawsuits against ten different corporations and the courts rule for the corporations in those cases, it proves exactly nothing. that's why we shouldn't focus on who wins the cases but, rather, on whether they were decided based upon proper legal principles, on precedent, and on the way the courts are supposed to approach cases -- on the facts and the law.

judge kavanaugh, in the meetings that i sat in on, went to great pains to describe how he approaches a case, and he begins by looking at the text of the constitution or any relevant statutes. he begins applying the law as judges are supposed to do in interpreting those constitutional provisions and statutes. and in the process of doing this, he uses the same principles that other judges do, and i'll mention them in just a moment what some of those principles are. i mention the fact that some of my colleagues have focused on who he has ruled for in cases. now, bear in mind that has a member of the u.s. court of appeals he sits with two other judges. the three judges decide the cases, not just one. although a case can be decided by a 2-1 vote.

but some of my colleagues have said, well, they're concerned that because he served in an administration for a president and because of something he once wrote for a law review article in a they fear that -- that they fear that he would want to rule for the president and against other parties if a lawsuit involved the question of executive power, how much authorit -- authority does the president of the united states enjoy. i think that's wrong based upon his explanation of all of his decisions and what he has written on the suggest. i think it's very clear that he has no predelicses in this record, and he believes strongly in the powers as set forth in the u.s. constitution, that he holds no special place for the president above the other two branches of government. one of the cases that he cites to demonstrate this fact is a case that didn't please me, and the outcome certainly didn't please his old boss, president bush, because he ruled against president bush.

instead, he ruled for osama bin laden's assistant and driver. and the reason he did that is because he said that that individual, as bad as he may be, as evil as he may be, was not accorded proper constitutional rights as guaranteed under our constitution, and he had to reach the result that he did because of that. as i said, i didn't like the outcome, and i'm sure his previous boss, president bush, didn't either, but it illustrates the fact that he's not going to blindly rule for the president, even in a case where the equities would seem to favor what the president was trying to do in this case, and that is to ensure that osama bin laden's colleagues were held to account for their misdeeds. so bottom line here is that it's not who wins and loses that matters, it's whether the law is applied fairly and correctly. now, how do we know whether it's correctly applied?

obviously, judges will differ sometimes, and each case is going to be decided on its own merits. the question of how one judges is really the key to this. i said i would get to it. here's just a little bit of a discussion of how cases should be decided, how judges should approach these decisions and how i believe judge kavanaugh would. it's based on legal rules and principles that have been long established and written up and followed by courts throughout the ages. the law is literally full of these rules. basically, the how-to for judges to decide difficult cases. and most judges know and apply these rules fairly and systematically. they don't try to make up new rules or deliberately fudge the facts or twist the rules in order to reach a desired result. i kind of liken it to the instructions that come with those dreaded packages that say some assembly required. that's always a sign that i need

to get my wife involved rather than for me to do it myself because i don't follow directions very well. but a failure to follow the steps in that case can lead to some pretty bad results, as a couple of lawn chairs i put together will attest to. the question here is a judge should have a clear view of how he approaches each case, the steps that he follows to decide that, but sometimes cases provide ambiguities and difficult decisions that make it especially difficult to apply the usual rules. in these cases, the question is whether a judge will be tempted to guess what the right procedure is or to try to reach an outcome that he has predetermined he wants to reach as opposed to applying other commonsense principles. and it is true that sometimes laws are ambiguous and they require some interpretation. i have seen judge kavanaugh address this precise question and to go over decision after

decision that he has made showing how he approaches cases like this. and i can tell you first of all he -- he tries to get his colleagues to agree if a reading of a statute is not really all that ambiguous, to say look, if you find my reading of the statute persuasive, then that should be it, that should end the inquiry. we don't have to find ambiguity in every single thing, because when ambiguity is found, obviously, judges are not as tethered to the law as they would otherwise be. he is very aware of this, and he has tried very hard i think to reach the right conclusion based upon a proper application of the law. and i'm not going to go into all of those judicial rules. we have heard of precedent and statutory interpretation and the like, but i will say that having heard him describe his approach to numerous cases, i am convinced that he will, as a justice on the supreme court,

apply the law in the same way that he has on his 12 years as a member of the court of appeals. he describes his approach to judging in a way that some have called strict construction or texturallism, which i think is not much more than giving a preference to the written text of either the constitution in a case where constitutional interpretation is the question or statutes in cases where statutes have to be interpreted. this approach to judging is more the methodology that's used more and more today by judges, and it tries to avoid substituting the judge's notions of how things should come out and substituting the judge's discretion as opposed to carefully reading the text of the constitution or the statute as either the founding fathers or the congress in the case of statutes has written it. as i said, during his many interviews and hearing him explain his approach, i believe

he's given us a very good idea to how he would approach cases in the future, and as i said, while there are one or two areas that some of my colleagues have raised questions about, i have no doubt at all that he is an extraordinarily knowledgeable and very wise judge who will do what he is supposed to do on the supreme court to apply the law fairly and correctly. and i also believe something else. that he's going to work very hard to find consensus on the court. we all hear about 5-4 decisions, and they don't make us feel good, but it illustrates how judges can differ, and it sometimes demonstrates an ideological division on the court, which we would hope to avoid. he would like to work with his colleagues to try to come to more consensus decisions than to have these kind of split decisions. he really loves the law, and you know that when you talk to him, and he is really committed to making it work. another critical factor for a judge -- and we frequently refer

to it. it's been referred to on the floor here. is what we call judicial temperament. this is especially important in district court judges where they appear juries and where trials are actually held. you want the jurors in the case to understand the case well, to feel good about being there as jurors, judging their fellow citizens, and judicial temperament is very important for the judge in those cases. but even on a court of appeals, one must have judicial temperament that demonstrates to the parties, to the litigants that the judge is fair, that demonstrates to the lawyers involved that he can be respectful of them and fair to all of them, and that he can be con genial with his fellow judges on the court with whom he has to work every day and decide these cases. up until the second hearing for judge kavanaugh following professor ford's testimony, i don't believe anybody really questioned judge kavanaugh's judicial temperament.

his 12 years on the court of appeals for the district of columbia revealed a very careful and courteous and engaged judge, fair to the parties, reasonable to the lawyers, and collegial to his colleagues. it was only when responding to the attacks on his character that he even showed much emotion. and i believe that most honest observers would allow him some slack for that in view of the nature of the allegations against him. much like the need to show some lenience in evaluating the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, i think we can appreciate the role of emotion in his testimony. he apologized to the one senator to whom he was rude, and in my view, the best evidence of his temperament as a judge is his temperament as a judge for the last 12 years. so as to judicial temperament, knowledge of the law, and approach to deciding cases, i believe few would doubt his equal -- qualifications to sit

on the u.s. supreme court. that brings us to the fourth part of my presentation here, the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. do they amount to something that should disqualify him for serving on the supreme court? i don't think i need to detail here every allegation and every witness statement that has been involved in the investigation of these allegations. in the recent hearing at which both proffer ford and judge kavanaugh testified, i believe most observers saw both as presenting credible testimony, and i agree with that. that their recollections differed does not necessarily mean that either of them knowingly lied. we should neither automatically believe one over the other, she because her testimony was that she had been sexually abused, nor he because he's a sitting federal judge. as i said, each deserves some deference for the reasons that i

stated. but if both are believable, we must still find a way to analyze the evidence to help us reach a conclusion on the issue before us -- should judge kavanaugh be confirmed. the best way to verify the allegations is through corroboration, evidence that backs up the accusations that have been made. none of the individuals that drd corroborate the allegations. some denied them. others had no recollection of such incidents. some said even though, they believe judge kavanaugh. at least one says the same as to professor ford. there does not appear to be any corroborative evidence. professor ford's telling of her story later to others is not corroboration, but it does go to her credibility. that she did not report her incident earlier is not dispositive. victims in similar situations

frequently do not report, for a number of reasons. the fact that her very good friend allegedly at the party in question and the only other girl present, according to professor ford, did not become aware of the accusations that night does raise some particular questions. that despite her friendship with dr. ford, that person continues to insist she has no recollection of the party in question or of brett kavanaugh. i have either read all of the f.b.i. notes or had them read to me and have been briefed by the committee staff on all of the f.b.i. and committee contacts. this includes the second round of f.b.i. interviews. contrary to what some have said, this process was not constrained. the f.b.i. was not told not to interview certain people. they were in fact told to follow the leads. i believe that they interviewed not just four witnesses but a total of ten witnesses in this latest round of their

interviews. after reading what i have read and being briefed on the remainder by committee staff, i find nothing to verify the accusations against judge kavanaugh. he has unequivocably denied them, and having gotten to know him as i have, i conclude he is not the proper subject of the accusations. some have suggested that he must prove that he did not engage in the conduct alleged. it would be totally unfair to place upon him the burden of proving a negative. this is ordinarily impossible. when you neither know the time nor place of an event alleged, you can't disprove then that you were there then or there whenever that was. in this particular case, for example, unless he could somehow show that he was in europe the entire three months of the summer allegedly involved here, or some similar thing to that,

there is no way that he could prove a negative, namely that he wasn't there. it's true that the presumption of innocence applies in our courts, but the same notion of fair play applies in other aspects of our civic and social life. if a mere allegation of wrongdoing is enough to deny an applicant a job or otherwise discredit an individual for the rest of that person's life, our society would be torn apart. this is why we have constitutional rights which embody our notions of fair play in life generally. while this is not really a job interview, as it's been described, even if it were, and we were the prospective employers, we would want to evaluate the qualifications in this case of judge kavanaugh, including accusations against him. and those accusations would not just be taken at face value, particularly as serious as they are and the fact that he has unequivocably denied them. so i conclude that under all of

the circumstances, including the nature of the evidence brought ford and how that evidence would be proven to us, i conclude that, including how he has lived his adult life and after seven f.b.i. investigations now, it is more probable than not that the accusations against him are not true and therefore disqualifying for his nomination. and that brings me to the fifth and final point of my discussion, mr. president. lifelong considerations of suitability to serve. i noted the qualifications for judges, their judicial temperament, the way they approach judging cases, their record of writing opinions, what they have said and how they have said it. that's the first thing we look at. but we also look at the whole person, and that's an appropriate thing to do. so let's look at judge kavanaugh's whole person. first of all, i would like to denote some things that i think are not relevant to his competence to serve on the supreme court, but which we have heard a lot