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 about.

not relevant are judge bork, justice thomas, or judge garland, or arguments about who started the unseemly process we're in now. by the way, let me just as an aside here note that in one of the interviews with a senator, the interview started as follows : judge kavanaugh, glad you came in today, but i can tell you that this is going to be very, very hard because of what happened to judge garland. well, you can have your views as to whether judge garland was treated fairly or not, but that should have no bearing on the qualifications of judge kavanaugh to be confirmed to the united states united states supreme court. other not relevant things are comments from the president of the united states including unfair comments about professor ford. also not relevant is the outcome of this debate on elections or on president trump's future. nor is this about punishing judge kavanaugh because some crime victims have not

previously received justice. the most recent claim here now is about process. i think his qualifications have been well established. now the claim is the process is lacking, is not fair. obviously with -- what this is t about is whether the f.b.i. was allowed to do its work, as i believe it was. the vote we'll be casting tomorrow should not be a surrogate for some other agenda. it should be simply our judgment of judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the united states supreme court. our advice on and potential consent to his nomination by the president. as i said, having been with him in interviews, with a majority of my colleagues, and otherwise gotten to know him and having witnessed and learned of the esteem of which he is held by colleagues, former law clerks and students, professional friends and being aware of his contributions to his community,

his country, his church and his family, i conclude that he is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court and will serve the nation well in a position of associate justice. as i said, mr. president, the best evidence of how he will perform as a justice is how he has performed over the dozen years that he has been a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. i urge my colleagues to focus on the question at hand, and i urge them to support judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the united states supreme court. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, tomorrow we will cast a very important vote on whether to end debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. should he be confirmed to this position of awesome responsibility, judge kavanaugh would be just one of nine people

with the power to change the american government and the american way of life for at least a generation. he would be hearing and deciding cases that touch all facets of our lives, including the health care we receive when the texas case involving the affordable care act's individual mandate makes its way to the supreme court. and this particular case is very important because if texas wins, that means that the a.c.a.'s protections for those with preexisting conditions, one out of four people in this country would be done away with. the supreme court will also get probably a lot of immigration cases. in many cases about daca, sanctuary sites, temporary and protected status and family separation that are pending in the lower courts. abortion as courts weigh the burden imposed on a woman's

right to choose by laws limiting abortion in states like texas, iowa, and louisiana. so it doesn't really matter? of course it matters whether roe v. wade is overturned. even if roe v. wade is not overturned, with judge kavanaugh's record, all of these limiting laws by states that i just talked about will probably be supported by him. and at some point the right to an abortion that we have under roe v. wade will be pretty much a nullity. the supreme court will also be faced with cases that will address the right of workers to bargain collectively with their employers, as litigation comes up to the high court in the wake of a janus decision and many or important topics including voting rights, gerrymandering, the census, race-conscious college admissions and

environmental laws. the supreme court's decisions touch every aspect of american life. with so much at stake, the senate has an obligation to closely scrutinize every nominee to the supreme court. we need to know that they have the qualifications for the job. do they have the proper education? do they have the necessary breadth of experience? will they treat everyone in the court including employees, law clerks and lawyers with an even temperament? will they make reasoned decisions when the stakes are high? can they listen to the facts and apply the law without fear or favor or will they let the experiences they bring with them override objective judgment? will they insert their personal preferences where they don't belong? we need to know if they can rule fairly. will they give every litigant who comes before the court a

fair hearing? will they acknowledge and put aside their biases inherent and otherwise? these last two considerations are especially important because the trump administration outsourced the vetting of supreme court nominees to the federalist society and the heritage foundation. these ultraright wing groups have spent decades supporting people like brett kavanaugh and their ideological, outcome-driven jurisprudence. after months of scrutinizing judge kavanaugh's record and evaluating his performance before the judiciary committee in two hearings, it's clear the answer to most of these questions is no. his judicial record is deeply ideological and outcome-driven. he remains a fierce political partisan operative, and he holds troubling legal views on native hawaiians, native americans, and alaska natives.

these patterns are clear based on the weeks i spent reviewing judge kavanaugh's writings, judicial decisions and a small fraction of his record made available from his time as a key white house aide to president george w. bush. i became even more certain of my decision to oppose his nomination after his first hearing in the judiciary committee and after reading the mostly dismissive nonanswers he gave to our follow-up written questions. there are plenty of substantive reasons to oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination, and i will continue speaking out about many of these reasons in the coming days. but over the past two and a half weeks we've learned new information that underscored my concern that brett kavanaugh lacks the character, candor, credibility, and temperament to serve on the united states supreme court. last week the senate judiciary

committee heard testimony from dr. christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh about dr. ford p's account of an attack on her by the nominee and a friend when they were all teenagers. dr. ford conducted herself with grace and courage, recounting the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on her life. in his testimony, judge kavanaugh dropped the polite veneer he presented at his first hearing during which he complimented all of the senators he met with and told the committee that, quote, the supreme court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. end quote. that was then. by last thursday he launched into a partisan political screed that contradicted everything he has ever professed to believe about the way judges should behave. he said, quote, this whole

two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars and money from outside left-wing opposition groups. end quote. i have to say sitting there listening to him be so totally partisan was bizarre. what he said was bizarre. he was angry, he was belligerent, he was partisan, he went on the attack, he argued with senators. he forgot he who was there to ak the questions and who was there to answer them. these are not qualities for a supreme court justice. more than 1,700 law professors around the country agree, including professors from the

university of hawaii and 21 professors from georgetown university law center. , both my alma maters. i want to quote from what the law professor said. we have different views about the other qualifications of judge kavanaugh, but we are united as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of the land. end quote. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from the law professors be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: judge kavanaugh also tried to convince us that while he liked beer, he was basically a choirboy, interested in nothing more than sports, school, and service projects. this carefully painted image has

been directly contradicted by judge kavanaugh's words in his yearbook and classmates over the past weeks. these inconsistencies and contradictions were part of the reason why i joined many of my colleagues in calling for a full f.b.i. investigation of allegations against judge kavanaugh. i wanted the f.b.i. to examine inconsistencies and contradictions between his testimony and that of others who knew him in high school, college, and beyond. last friday senators flake and coons brokered an agreement to hold off on a floor vote for at least a week while the supplemental background investigation could be completed to look into these allegations. but i was disappointed that as the days went by, it became more and more clear that the white house rigged the investigation. the president claimed to want the f.b.i. to do a comprehensive investigation, but that did not

happen. our ranking member, senator feinstein, wrote to white house counsel don mcgahn and f.b.i. director christopher wray the day after the investigation began to require a copy of the written directive sent by the white house to the f.b.i. she got no response. the following day many other members of the committee also wrote to mr. mcgahn and director wray about the supplemental investigation. in addition to repeating the ranking member's request for an explanation of the scope of the investigation, we also asked that it be comprehensive. we wanted all serious allegations against the nominee to be investigated. and of course we would expect in a comprehensive investigation that all appropriate witnesses be questioned. we asked that the f.b.i. perform all logical steps related to these allegations, including of course interviewing other individuals who might have

relevant information and gathering evidence related to the truthfulness of statements made in relation to these allegations. we got no response. just yesterday i joined a letter with many of my committee colleagues asking chairman grassley to prevent public mischaracterization or selected leaks of the results of the f.b.i.'s previous work. we urged him to, quote, call for a full senate briefing by the f.b.i. so that all senators hear the same information and have the same opportunity to question the f.b.i. before any floor vote on the kavanaugh nomination. end quote. these are requests having to do with the most recent f.b.i. investigation. and we asked for a meeting between the chairman and the minority members to establish bipartisan ground rules for public discussion of the information provided by the f.b.i. and this most recent

totally truncated and inadequate investigation. those last were my words. both requests were rejected. i had hoped the f.b.i. would exhaust all possible avenues of investigation relevant to whether judge kavanaugh had a pattern of drinking that resulted in aggression and belligerence toward women. i had hoped they will follow leads given to them by dr. ford and merchandise ramirez. -- and ms. ramirez. i had hoped they would be permitted to do the job we know they can do, the job former director james comey said they could do. instead as we now know, they were only allowed to do the bare minimum. as we know from news reports, there are dozens of people with relevant information, some of whom say they have corroborating evidence who need to be interviewed, but they were not. it is simply impossible after seeing the results of the f.b.i. supplemental work -- and i hes tate to call it -- hesitate to

call it an investigation, that anybody could think it was in any way shape, or form the comprehensive investigation the president promised. this so-called investigation is a sham. it is a fig leaf for the republicans to hide behind. it is a talking point for their continued criticism of democrats. they said, see, you wanted an f.b.i. investigation, you got one, and now it isn't good enough for you. who are they kidding? this is a sham investigation. well, this so-called investigation wasn't good enough for me, and it shouldn't be good enough to satisfy the american people. judge kavanaugh has the burden -- he has a burden, not a burden of proof like in a court but the burden to show us he has not just the credentials for the job but the temperament and

character necessary for this lifetime appointment. i said many times that democrats didn't need to manufacture reasons to oppose kavanaugh's elevation to the supreme court. based on his record, also opinions, his dissents, his academic writings, and speeches, i had concluded before the new reports came forward that he would not be fair and objective on the supreme court. his views on reproductive rights, native rights and legal protections for workers, consumers, and the environment are all of deep concern to me, not to mention his expansive views on executive power, including protecting a sitting president from criminal or civil proceedings. but now that we have heard dr. ford's account and seen judge kavanaugh's angry and combative reaction, it is evident that he should not serve and should not be confirmed to the supreme court for a

lifetime, decades of making decisions that impact our lives that will impact our lives on all these areas that he has a very troubling record on. we can do better, and the american people deserve better. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for hawaii. ms. hirono: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: presiding officer: e

senator for washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor today to join in opposition to judge kavanaugh and call on my colleagues to join me in voting against this

mad dash to jam through a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. mr. president, last week democrats and republicans stood together to ask republican leaders to allow the bear minimum, an f.b.i. investigation into the new allegations that have come in. this wasn't an unreasonable request. it happens all the time with nominees. and for far less important positions than a lifetime seat on the supreme court. and it is the very least that should be done when serious allegations like these were made to make sure we are hearing from all relevant witnesses and bringing all relevant information in for consideration. but, mr. president, this simply has not happened. this morning i went in for a briefing on the new f.b.i. investigation, and it was very clear to anyone who reviewed the material that senate republican leaders and president trump cut the f.b.i. off and refused to allow them to conduct the comprehensive and thorough investigation that was promised

to democrats and republicans. instead, this was rigged from the start to protect judge kavanaugh because here is what we know and this has been reported in the press. dr. ford was not interviewed despite her repeated requests. we know judge kavanaugh was not questioned. we have heard from so many other witnesses who were desperate to talk to the f.b.i., desperate, because they had relevant information they wanted to share in confidence. as far as we know, they were never even contacted. and now senators had to line up to read a single copy of a limited f.b.i. report over the course of today. we're not allowed to share what we saw or take notes out of the room, and we're not permitted to ask the f.b.i. agents who actually conducted the investigation any questions. although i'm not permitted to share what i heard and read in the briefing, i can say that absolutely nothing i saw makes me believe dr. ford any less.

and in fact, based on what i saw, i am even more concerned about the veracity of in of what we heard from judge kavanaugh. even more important than anything, we saw was how much we were not able to see because the investigation was limited. and once again, the voices of women and their experiences have been silenced and pushed aside. so, mr. president, the questions everyone should be asking right now are, what are republican leaders so afraid the f.b.i. would find if they were allowed to take the full week to truly conduct a thorough investigation and talk to all of the relevant witnesses. what are they trying to hide and why won't they allow this to be done right when we're talking about a nomination to the highest court in the land. so, mr. president, i come to the floor to make three points. to urge my colleagues to vote no and stop this mad dash to a rushed confirmation. first, i'm going to talk about what we know about the serious and credible allegations against judge kavanaugh by dr. ford and

others. second, i'm going to run through once again the serious credibility problems that have been raised regarding judge kavanaugh and finally, i will highlight once again the real temperament concerns so many of us have based on what we saw from judge kavanaugh at the last hearing. first and foremost, mr. president, i believe dr. ford. she has absolutely no reason to lie and she had no interest in making this public before she was compelled to citing her civic duty. mr. president, we all saw her at the hearing. and like so many people across the country, i was riveted. i watched with tears in my eyes. dr. ford was so brave and compelling. she was so real. the memories she recounted were heartbreaking. the fear she felt when she was being attacked. the relief she felt when she finally made it out of the house. the laughter between brett

kavanaugh and mark judge she will never forget. the fact that she is 100% sure it was brett kavanaugh who attacked her. millions of people watched her, and so many women and survivors were inspired by her bravery. mr. president, dr. ford made a credible allegation of a serious offense that needs to be taken seriously. we've also heard from other women, miss ramirez, miss swetnick with their own experiences to share. they should be listened to. they should be heard. we should presume they are telling the truth and republican leaders should allow a full investigation into their allegations. because in the end, despite what some republicans tried to claim, this is not a trial. we are not supposed to weigh evidence and make judgment about innocence or guilt. our job as senators is to weigh what we know, weigh what we

hear, weigh what we learn and use our own judgment to determine whether a nominee deserves a promotion to the highest court in the land. and based on everything i know about the allegations made against judge kavanaugh, he should not be confirmed and he should not be in a position to make decisions on the supreme court that impact women and families and the future of our country which takes me to my second point. judge kavanaugh's serious credibility issues. i went through this in some detail on the floor yesterday. i won't go through all of it again. but time and again in his initial hearing and even further in his second hearing, judge kavanaugh made it clear he has serious issues with the truth. he testified under oath directly to senators and made claims that simply defy belief on issues big and small. again and again he made claims that were contradicted either through e-mails that were uncovered or from others who felt compelled to come forward

after hearing what he said that simply did not align with what they knew to be true. if we can't trust what he has said to us on those issues, if we know some of what he said is simply false, how can we trust him on so many other issues? surely the least we can expect from someone nominated to serve on our nation's highest court has a basic commitment to honesty and truth, especially while under oath. this shouldn't be a partisan issue. it's just common sense, which brings me to the third point i want to make. like so many people watching last week's hearing, i was shocked by judge kavanaugh's raw anger, his rage, disrespect, sense of entitlement, and sneering condescension. from his apparent baffling that he had to respond to credible allegations against him, to his attempts to throw questions back at senators asking them instead

of actually answering them himself, to his open partisanship, his bitterness, to his rage and anger and so much more. i cannot imagine any senator seeing what we saw in that hearing, watching a nominee make a display like that and thinking this person is fit to serve as an impartial judge on our nation's highest court? i know president trump loved judge kavanaugh's performance. seemed to inspire him to move from calling dr. ford a credible witness to openly mocking and attacking her. and it sounds like it has galvanized him to fight even harder for the man whose anger and defensiveness he clearly identifies so closely with. but, mr. president, i thought it was truly awful. it was not the kind of temperament we should want on the supreme court, and i can only especial hope enough of our colleagues agree. mr. president, once again i believe dr. ford and to me judge kavanaugh has shown so clearly

he does not have the temperament or credibility to serve on the supreme court. but for any of my colleagues who may not be persuaded and have bravely stood up to ask for more information and a thorough investigation and for all of us who believe that the senate should do its job and get this right, we can't rush this to a finish line. a truly thorough investigation must be completed as promised so that senators hear from all the relevant witnesses and gather all the relevant information before we cast a vote on this confirmation. it can be done quickly but it has to be done right because, mr. president, if this does end up being jammed through as apparently currently republican leaders intend to do, it will completely undermine the public's trust in the credibility of the supreme court as information continues to come out from investigations that will continue whether or not he's confirmed. it would eliminate any remaining

trust people have in senate republican leaders to allow us to fulfill our constitutional advice and consent role and not just be a rubber stamp for the president. and it would cause tremendous anger and backlash across the country from those who are shocked to see the voices of women and survivors ignored like this. mr. president, i ran for the senate after i saw what happened to anita hill in 1991. based on everything i'm seeing and hearing across the country, all the anger and energy and focus, i'm confident that if women and their voices are attacked, undermined, and disrespected once again, we are going to see a wave of anger and frustration and activism that makes 1992 look like a ripple. we still have time to do this right. we still have time to do better than the senate did in 1991. we still have time to restore

the public's faith that women will be listened to. so i urge my colleagues to join me, vote no tomorrow and end this mad dash to confirmation. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for new mexico. a senator: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president, i am deeply saddened that the words i'm about to deliver even need to be said in the first place. but i have to ask, how can we possibly continue to move forward or as in the majority leader's own words, plow right through to confirm a lifetime appointment on our nation's supreme court in the wake of both credible allegations of sexual misconduct leveled

against the nominee brett kavanaugh and serious questions concerning his judicial temperament? republicans are ignoring very real questions about his credibility and are intent on hiding his record. even worse, they are in such a rush that most of them did not even want the f.b.i. to reopen judge kavanaugh's background check to help us get to the bottom of this. and when the f.b.i. did reopen the investigation, the white house limited in its scope so much that it did not follow multiple credible leads. and now we as senators have barely 24 hours to review their findings before scrambling to a vote. as the whole nation watches, what message is the united states senate sending to our children, to women, to vehicle ims of sexual -- to victims of sexual assault about the values that we stand for?

do they not matter? is this the society that we want our sons and daughters to grow up in? we all know full well the weight of who fills this deciding vote on our nation's highest court. whoever we confirm as our nation supreme court justice will decide major cases that shape the daily lives of americans for decades to come. but this is not a time for simply thinking about the judicial philosophies that we believe should shape opinions on the bench. i have made it clear that i oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination based on the substance of his views and the broken process being used to rush this nomination through the senate on a partisan basis. from the very start, republicans have pushed this nomination through at a breakneck pace, hiding from the public judge kavanaugh's record and the dangerous consequences of his extreme views on many important

issues. that willful blindness, the absence of a thorough vetting process, and the mad dash to hastily confirm their nominee at all cost before this fall's election, has led us to the crisis we face today. this has now become an even more fundamental test of how seriously we as senators make our duty of advice and consent on enormously consequential presidential the appointments. multiple women have come forward publicly to accuse brett kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. while we will never be able to adjudicate these allegations in the same way as a criminal proceeding, we have an obligation to weigh these accusations carefully and seriously as we consider judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the supreme court. i, for one, after reviewing all of the information that we have

and after listening to the testimony last week before the judiciary committee, have to say clearly and forcefully that i believe dr. ford. when a victim of sexual assault comes forward to make a harrowing allegation like this, it takes tremendous courage and it shouldn't be dismissed. under incredible duress and at a great personal cost, dr. ford came forward to share the painful details of how brett kah assaulted her when she was in high school and i don't know how anyone watching her testimony could question her sincerity or the seriousness of her experience. but some republicans seem to be following president trump's lead here and are choosing to jeer and dismiss dr. ford rather than take her testimony seriously. as i have said before, all of

the sexual assault allegations made against judge kavanaugh deserve a thorough professional investigation by the f.b.i. before proceeding with any vote on his nomination to the highest court in the land. i was relieved to see my colleague, senator flake of arizona, speak up and call for a delay to seek a more thorough investigation. and, unfortunately, once again the rush to get a predetermined outcome as undermined the integrity of the process. dr. ford told us that she was absolutely willing to participate in an f.b.i. investigation to get to the bottom of judge kavanaugh's alleged assault. but according to her, she was not even interviewed by the f.b.i. as part of this reopened investigation. the f.b.i. did interview another accuser, deborah ramirez, who has alleged that judge kavanaugh

exposed himself to her during their freshman year at yale. however, dozens of others sought to bring evidence forward, and the f.b.i. ignored their willingness to offer testimony. again, key witnesses, including judge kavanaugh and dr. ford, were not even interviewed by the f.b.i. the f.b.i. was so constrained by the white house in this matter, that i would not call this an investigation. this is unjust. this sends a harrowing message to women and girls all around the nation who have been victims of sexual violence. we must not toss aside a fair and impartial process in favor of a hurried political end game. before we take one of the most consequential votes that any of us will ever take, shouldn't we want to get to the bottom of this? even beyond what we could learn from a real investigation, there is already reason to doubt judge

kavanaugh's credibility and his candor. despite the fact that the white house tried to limit the scope of the f.b.i.'s work so drastically that i wouldn't characterize it as an investigation, the f.b.i.'s report still manages to raise very serious questions about judge kavanaugh's truthfulness. during his confirmation process, judge kavanaugh began by misleading the senate on small things. he misled the senate on consequential questions about his time in the bush white house. and last week when faced with serious questions about the sexual assault allegations, questions about his character, judge kavanaugh dodged, he dismissed, and he ranted. he was not able to refute the serious accusations leveled against him, and neither did the f.b.i. report. and based on what we have heard since from people who knew him at the time, there is

substantial reason to believe that he was not being truthful about his conduct. if dr. ford's testimony is the truth -- and i believe it is -- then judge kavanaugh should be disqualified from serving on the supreme court. once again, i fully acknowledge the stakes of this nomination. i understand how much my republican colleagues want to appoint someone they agree with on important issues that may come before this court. but we cannot, we should not rush to confirm a man to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land under such a dark cloud of credible allegations. not to such a critical seat at such a critical time. last week's hearing should have been the beginning of looking into this serious allegation, not the end. and if there is nothing to hide and if there is information that would exonerate judge kavanaugh from the accusations that have

been leveled against him, then a real in-depth investigation would help us reach those conclusions. instead, republicans continue to rush this process and press forward with a predetermined set of conclusions. it makes one wonder if my republican colleagues actually want to know the truth. we cannot allow these allegations to be swept under the rug. the message that would send to victims of sexual assault and abuse would be devastating. it would effectively say to them that even if they come forward, there will be no justice, that they will be ignored or, worse yet, move to concurred, in the case of the president. all people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic background should have the same right to live free from domestic and sexual violence. i am truly stunned that we are moving forward with this

confirmation vote. if we can't pause to make sure we get this right, the institution of the supreme court will lose the public's faith as an embodiment of justice. so i will ask one more time -- what are we doing here? cannot be do better than this? i think we must. the integrity of the highest court in the land hangs in the balance. what we stand for as a nation hangs in the balance. mr. tillis: mr. president? er. the presiding officer: the senator from for north carolina. mr. tillis: i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. tillis: i ask unanimous consent that jay nathan, a fellow in senator cassidy's office, be granted floor privileges for the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you,

mr. president. well, mr. president, i know you've preside add few -- presided a few times when i've given this speech and sadly it is a speech i have got to given if. it is not a prepared speech. tans update on a travesty of justice occurring over in turkey. today is october 4. october 7 of 2016, a man named andrew brunson, a presbyterian minister from my state, north carolina, up near black mountain, was arrested by turkish authorities. pastor brunson has been a missionary in turkey for about 20 years. and in 2016, there was a coup attempt, an illegal coup attempt, and people who were associated with it should go to prison because there should not be violent changes of power in nations. they have an election process. they should honor it. i have no problem with people who have evidence of having been

associated with an illegal coup going to prison. but i've got a real problem with a man who, for the last two years, has been in a turkish prison over the past couple of months finally we've gotten him on house arrest, went 19 months without an indictment. he was just held without charges. for 19 months, and then they put together an indictment that was truly i don't think something that would keep you in an american jail overnight. read it. felt so strongly about it i decided to go to turkey and be in a courtroom when he sat through his first nearly 16-hour hearing -- 12 hours, about 12 hours. and i was in that courtroom for the whole time, in a courtroom just outside of. smir. it was the second time i had been there to visit him in prison to let him know that the united states senate and u.s. congress knows he's there ander we're not going to forget him.

the reason i do this speech is to remind the american people about pastor brunson, to remind them about other americans and turkish americans thatter in prison suggesting that they were a part of trying to overthrow preyed erdogan's government. now, now, the number of days, by the way -- it'll be two years on the seth. but that's 727 days that he's been held in prison. what i want to talk about is kind of related to a subject we're discussion on the floor on another matter -- unsubstantiated allegations. this man has over 11 unsubstantiated allegations. what does that meaning? somebody says, i saw somebody do this. and yet they produce nobody else that can actually corroborate -- in other words, say, yep, i remember that happening.

i agree with that testimony. in 11 different cases, and many of the different people that testified wouldn't even show their face. they were on a video screen with that digital blocking with the voices hidden, some of them we now know are in turkish prisons themselves. none of the allegations have been corroborated by a single person. and yet this american, this man who was bringing the word of god to the people who wanted to hear it -- he wasn't forcing it on them; he was asking them into the church, if they wanted to sit through a service son a sun someday or -- on a sunday or during the week. he was put in prison. he was put in prison for allegations -- one person who is also in prison said one night they saw the light on up in the upstairs part of this very small church. it only fits about 100 people. there is a little office upstairs. there was a light on for four hours and, therefore, something bad must have been happening in there. there is another problem with that african americans it turns out, i went to the church.

there is no win in that upstairs -- there is no window in that upstairs room. yet that's an unsubstantiated allegation that's landed in man in prison and potentially subject to a 35-year prison sentence in turkey. another was a social media post by his daughter who ate a meal who the tush iraq -- turkish authorities say is a meal commonly eaten by terrorist organizations. therefore, she must be associated with that association. that's the level of the anticipation. it's one of the more popular dishes enjoyed by many people, kurds, turk issue, many people in the middle east. but that's the unsubstantiated allegations that's kept this man in prison for two years and potentially could be in prison for 35. and he's coming up on his final court date where they're either going to release him or sentence him. i want to thank president trump for making this a priority. i want to thank secretary of

state pompeo for making this a property. i want to thank my colleagues here, including the presiding officer, who voted on a provision in the national defense authorization act that says, turkey, if you go down this pact, there will be consequences. if you go down this path, you may not see the f-35 joint strike fighter ever be on turkish territory. we may have to rethink -- we have to make additional measures, and i am watching them. right now i am trying to show them respect and hope that they do the right thing. but i want pastor brunson, i want his wife, i want all the people that belong to his church, the same church that reverend billy graham was associated with, to know that if justice is not served, then we will continue to put the pressure on turkey in any way i can for as long i am a u.s. senator. but tonight i would just ask anybody watching this on c-span, all of my colleagues, just pray

for pastor brunson, pray for his release, and i hope that i don't have to come to you for additional support to remind turkey that our american justice system would never put a turkish person in prison and our nato ally should understand that we want him treated with respect and they're a very strong partner with the united states with respect. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. thune: mr. president, a long and arduous process is finally drawing to a close. in the next couple of days, we will vote on judge kavanaugh's confirmation to the united states supreme court, and i will be voting yes. last week, dr. christine blasey ford testified before the senate judiciary committee about an allegation she made about judge kavanaugh. dr. ford deserved to be heard, and she was. her claim -- claims deserved to be investigated, and they were thoroughly by the senate judiciary committee. and then they were investigated again by the f.b.i.

and here's what we have learned. after seven, seven f.b.i. background investigations, more than two weeks of committee investigations, and a day-long hearing where both sides were heard, there is not one scrap of corroborating evidence to back up her claims against judge kavanaugh. person after person after person has given testimony of judge kavanaugh's good character, both in high school and in his adult life. 65 women, 65 women who knew judge kavanaugh in high school sent a letter to the senate judiciary committee noting that he always treated women with, and i quote, decency and respect. but, mr. president, it's become clear that for many of my democrat colleagues, zero evidence was never going to be enough. innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to be a concept that my democrat colleagues understand. instead, my democrat colleagues

seem to be putting forth a new standard -- guilty no matter what, even with evidence to the contrary, which is scary, mr. president. because innocent until proven guilty is a pretty foundational principle of our system of government, and it's a powerful safeguard against destroying the lives of innocent people with false accusations. but the truth is to many of our democratic colleagues, judge kavanaugh has been guilty since the moment he was nominated. he is guilty of being a republican. he's guilty of being nominated by a republican president. he is guilty of pledging his allegiance to the law instead of the democrats' preferred judicial outcomes. and so any means of defeating him became fair game, no matter how unjust, no matter how outlandish. dr. ford certainly deserved to have her claims heard and

investigated, but democrats didn't stop there. they gave credence to almost every accusation that was thrown out, no matter how ridiculous or uncorroborated. it didn't matter if no less a paper than "the new york times" had declined to publish an accusation for lack of any corroboration. if it would slow down judge kavanaugh's confirmation, they grabbed onto it. at least one democrat senator suggested we need an f.b.i. investigation because judge kavanaugh had thrown ice at someone in college. ice, mr. president. apparently throwing ice in college is now grounds for an f.b.i. investigation. what's next? an f.b.i. investigation because judge kavanaugh stole another kid's toy in preschool? because he didn't share his swing on the playground during recess? the confirmation process for judge kavanaugh has gotten

particularly ugly in the last couple of weeks, but the truth is it was ugly from the beginning. long before dr. ford had made any accusations, one democrat senator on the judiciary committee said those who supported judge kavanaugh would be complicit and eve -- complicit in evil. in evil, mr. president. for stearts, let's point -- starters, let's point out that judge kavanaugh is a mainstream judge. during his time on the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh's democrat-appointed colleagues have been just as likely to join his majority opinions as his republican-appointed colleagues. just as likely. judge kavanaugh has won admiration from across the political spectrum for his intellect, his fairness, and his dedication to the law. former obama acting solicitor general neil catyall noted about judge kavanaugh, and i quote, i think it's hard for anyone who has worked with him, appeared

before him to frankly say a bad word about him. in my practice, we basically have a rule. if there is a kavanaugh clerk who applies, we hire that person, end quote. 34 of judge kavanaugh's law clerks wrote a letter on his nomination which said in payroll tax relief part, -- said in part, and i quote, our views on politics on many of the important issues faced by the supreme court and on judicial philosophy are diverse. our ranks include republicans, democrats, and independents. but we are united in this, our admiration and fondness for judge kavanaugh run deep. for each of us, it was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks, end quote. supreme court justice elena

kagan, surely not someone democrats think of as either evil or an extremist, hired judge kavanaugh to teach at harvard law school where he has served as the williston lecturer on law. both inside and outside his profession, those who know him praised his character. 84 women who worked with him in the bush administration sent a letter praising him as, quote, a man of the highest integrity, end quote. a self-described liberal democrat and feminist lawyer who knows judge kavanaugh and knows him well wrote the following in an op-ed for "politico," and i quote -- my standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well qualified, brilliant, has integrity, and is within the mainstream of legal thought. kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. just as a democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves

to be confirmed, so, too, does kavanaugh. not because he will come out the way i want in each case and even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy, and integrity, end quote. that from a liberal lawyer. this is the man that the junior democrat from new jersey said it would be evil to support. mr. president, i frequently disagree with my democrat colleagues on policy issues and oftentimes quite strongly, but i don't go around calling my colleagues evil because we disagree. i know that word should be reserved for people who have truly malicious motivations or who have done truly terrible things, not people who, like me, want to do what's best for our country but have different opinions about how to get there. what kind of an example does the senator from new jersey's

rhetoric set for our children? that civil disagreement is impossible, that anyone whose opinion differs from our own should not be tolerateed, that our fellow americans are not just our political opponents but our enemies? democrats like to accuse the president of using irresponsible rhetoric. i might suggest they take a long hard look in the mirror. but it's not just the democrats' rhetoric that has been extreme and irresponsible throughout this process, mr. president. so has their handling of dr. ford's allegation. the ranking member op the senate judiciary committee, the senior senator from california, sat on dr. ford's allegation for six weeks without sharing the allegation with republicans. during that time, she never once questioned judge kavanaugh about the allegation despite having multiple chances to do so, both in public and in private.

mr. president, if the ranking member thought this accusation was credible, she had an absolute responsibility to disclose it to the committee or to the f.b.i. immediately. she also had an obligation to ask judge kavanaugh about it. she did neither. if eernd she thought it was false, which is the only excuse for her silence, then democrats' decision to exploit this accusation for political gain is appalling. in either case, democrats have behaved with a total lack of responsibility throughout this process. not only have they shown not the slightest concern for the possibility of tarnishing a good man's name, they have also displayed no real concern for dr. ford. clearly, they had no particular interest in giving her or her allegation a hearing until it became politically expedient to do so. if they had really cared about

her accusation, they would have brought it up immediately and questioned judge kavanaugh about it immediately. instead, they held it in reserve to apparently be deployed in the event that they needed it to delay the confirmation process. shameful, mr. president, but not surprising, because as i said earlier, democrats made it clear from the beginning that they would do anything they could to defeat judge kavanaugh's nomination. and so throughout this process, they have grasped any straw that appeared. too few documents. too many documents. an unrelated investigation. outlandish accusations. and then after last week's hearing when it became clear there was no evidence against judge kavanaugh, they jumped on his misdemeanor at the hearing. now he was unqualified because he passionately defended his good name in front of the

committee. apparently, it's not okay to be angry when your good name has been dragged in the mud and your family has been threatened. and today, of course, now that we have gotten the results of the f.b.i. investigation, democrats requested, by the way, democrats are now saying that judge kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because the f.b.i. investigation wasn't long enough or thorough enough. well, i'd like to ask, mr. president, does anyone here think there is any f.b.i. investigation that would have satisfied my democratic colleagues? after all, we know democrats have been opposed to judge kavanaugh from the very beginning. a number of them announced their opposition before the ink was even dry on his nomination. are we really supposed to believe they were going to change their minds after yet another f.b.i. investigation? mr. president, despite the well-coordinated intimidation tactics of the far left, we're

moving forward. we're about to vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination, as we should be. i can't help but reflect on the process of getting here. i'd like to ask my democrat colleagues if this is what they think the process should look like going forward. do they really think that supreme court confirmation should be characterized by intense partisanship and unsubstantiated character attacks? do they really want to do away with the presumption of innocence and allow innuendo to substitute for evidence? do they really think it's okay to stop at nothing to tank a nomination? mr. president, tomorrow and saturday i will be casting my vote for judge kavanaugh. i'll be voting for him because he is supremely qualified. we all know that. the democrats know that. i'll be voting for him because he is a man of character and integrity and i will be voting

for him because i know that he can be relied on to uphold the rule of law and the constitution. and i invite not just my republican but my independent-thinking democrat colleagues to join me. it's not too late to say no to the politics of personal destruction. it's not too late to say no to unchecked partisanship, and it's not too late to put this eminently qualified nominee on the supreme court. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, our nation's walked through the supreme court --.

the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be viscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, the american people have walked through a supreme court nomination many times. there is a normal process of walking through a supreme court nomination. they're nominated by the president. there's a background check that's done. it's extensive. they then meet with every single senator, whoever wants to be able to meet with him privately. they turn in documents so that everyone can read through their background, their writing, getting details, getting interviews, anything they've ever written whether it was writing for their law school journal or writing an article for a sports magazine. everything they've ever written is turned in. everyone goes back through that. once they go through all 100 senators or whoever wants to be able to meet with them, the judiciary committee meets with them to do a week of hearings.

they'll do extensive work to be able to talk through everything. outside witnesses will come in and talk about their life. there's a confidential meeting that happens with all senators to be able to sit down and say there were some private accusations that might have been made or issues about your finances or things we saw in your background report we want to ask you about confidentially. then after all that is done then there's time for questions for the record. anyone who still has a question can submit it to the nominee and then it's time for a vote. that's how it's typically done. quite frankly, that looked like how it was being done this time with judge brett kavanaugh. he was nominated by the president. he turned over documents. and, boy, did he turn over documents. it was an enormous number of documents that were turned over about him and that requested and continue to be requested. brett kavanaugh ended up having 480,000 pages of documents that were turned over to the

committee. it's more than the past five supreme court nominees have turned over combined. there were 57 days from the time that he was nominated until the time they actually began the first hearing with the judiciary committee. that's longer in the period of time than it was for justice gorsuch, justice kagan or justice sotomayor, a long period of time between when he was nominated and actually came. there were more documents turned over than any other person. he went through the hearings for five days. he went through all the confidential meetings and those private meetings. he went through every private meeting with every senator that wanted to be able to meet privately and then it was time for questions for the record. 1,300 questions for the record were given to him as a follow-up after his hearing. that is more questions for the record than all supreme court justices combined in the history of the country.

after all of that was done, then a bombshell was dropped. you see, a month and a half before all of the end of the hearing was done, a lady named dr. ford had sent a letter to one of the other senators here. the ranking member of the judiciary committee, saying i have a concern from a memory that i have from high school time. that letter was turned over july 30, early in the process, while judge kavanaugh was still meeting individually with senators, before the hearings, before the classified meetings, before any of the questions for the record, before any of that. it was turned over early. apparently the ranking member's staff reached out to her then, had a phone call. the ranking member had a phone call, and then that information

was held. apparently from her own testimony, from dr. ford, then she was advised by the ranking member's staff, you need to go hire an attorney and to go prepare yourself. and then nothing was said for a month. and then two days before the hearing from the judiciary committee, suddenly a leak comes out of the committee from somewhere, and there's a story in the newspaper about this accuser, and everything begins to break loose. you know what's interesting is accusations like this are made for a lot of different nominees, of all different types, and have been for years and years and years. and so there's a process to be able to handle this. when an accusation is made like that, you give it to the f.b.i. early. they include it in their background check to be able to walk through it early. you sit down in confidential

meetings so that accusers don't have to go through all the public scrutiny. and you resolve it in a private setting, bringing as many witnesses as you want to be able to talk through it. but you don't want an accuser to be public in it because they don't like to be public. this is something private and very personal to them. but that's not what happened for dr. ford. it was saved. she was just told get an attorney. you're going to need it. and then her story was plopped out into the news, forcing her out, making her sit in front of the american people and dragging the american people through an exceptionally painful season in our country's history. at the end of that, there was a hearing many americans watched, rivetted, trying to figure out who's credible, how do i follow the story. all this testimony came out for brett kavanaugh who adamantly,

forcefully denied anything like this had ever been done with dr. ford or any other person, unequivocable. dr. ford said 100% i remember this and here are the three people that would also corroborate my story. they were there. there was a push from my democratic colleagues to say this investigation has been done by the committee. we want the investigation done by the f.b.i. with the unequivocal statement of during the anita hill hearings in 1991, the f.b.i. took three days to do the investigation. we want three days. give the f.b.i. three days to be able to do this. then it came back later, give them a week. give them a week. that's all it would take. so a decision was made to pause and to give the f.b.i. time to do it. and here were the instructions to the f.b.i.: research any credible accusation. no boundaries, no limitations on them. research a credible current

accusation. it wasn't just keep adding forever. if there was new accusations that came in, there would have to be a new conversation. but any one of them that's come in. and by that time they had started rolling in. so the f.b.i. was told just go look at them all. and they were given instructions. no one was tracking from the house or the senate of either party, f.b.i. do their task. they come back several days later now with a report that a lot of american people know is now stored downstairs that every senator has the opportunity to be able to go through. pages and pages of testimony. where they went through all of the individuals that were claimed to have any kind of alleged firsthand knowledge, all the individuals that dr. ford had stated, those three individuals were there. they can testify on my behalf. and then it was the list from brett kavanaugh's calendar saying here are all the individuals that went to these

parties. and so the f.b.i. went through and interviewed them all. the f.b.i. also went to mrs. ramirez, saying we'll take a look at this, even though even "the new york times" wouldn't take that story when it was offered to them. they spent a week researching it, calling around, as they said, to dozens of people to find anyone that could corroborate mrs. ramirez's story, and they couldn't find anyone, so "the new york times" walked away from it, but a different periodical printed it anyway. the f.b.i. went to mrs. ramirez, interviewed her, and interviewed everyone that she said would corroborate her story. at the end of that investigation, all those reports came in, and we have now read through them, and every single one of those individuals reported back i don't remember anything like what they're describing. not only do i not remember anything like what they're describing, i know brett

kavanaugh. i can't even imagine he would do something like that. person after person after person, instead of agreeing with their story, the accusation, actually agreed with brett kavanaugh instead. what's interesting is brett kavanaugh has been through six different f.b.i. background checks in the past. he's now at 150 people in his life that have been interviewed. interestingly enough, one of the questions to all 150 people in his life that have been interviewed, leading up before this time even, was one of the questions that the f.b.i. asked everyone -- asks everyone when they are doing the background check. do you know of any issues this person has with alcohol or drug use that would be a problem for them in serving? do they have a problem with drug and alcohol use? every single one of those people from two decades of background checks six different times in his life, all of them reported no, he does not have a problem

with drugs or alcohol. there has been this aggressive move over the last couple of weeks to transform a person into a monster. in fact, some of my colleagues on this floor have labeled him as evil, and even who supports him is evil. it's the transformation of a person's reputation for political gain. and the other accusations that i have seen in the media have been fascinating to me. i keep reading in the media for the past several weeks, there is another accuser. and the big story will come out, there is another accuser, but they don't ever seem to print the next day when that accuser recanted, as many of them have. a story breaks out one day saying here's the story that i remember and tells this whole sexually explicit story. the committee then contacts the

story and the individual and say under penalty of perjury would you be willing to testify to us of your story? instead of saying yes, i would be willing to agree to that story, their response that came back to them was i made a crazy mistake. i apologize. i recant my story. rather than face perjury in trying to testify. there was an accusation that came from an anonymous person in colorado saying i know i saw brett kavanaugh in this year at this time slam his girlfriend against the wall in this public place, except the problem was the girlfriend that he had at that time came out publicly and said that never, ever happened and can't imagine brett kavanaugh doing that. or my favorite one, the accusation that was printed, another accuser comes out, ends up being a person that had written in a tip saying there was a really salacious frat

party at brett kavanaugh's fraternity after he left yale that was a really big party, and it was really out of control. i bet brett kavanaugh came back to that party after he was out of college, i bet he came back and went to that party. someone should check. that was the big tip. it's really gotten out of control. this started with a serious accusation from someone that we should take it seriously when there is an accuser, from dr. ford. to be able to get the facts and the information. and it suddenly spun out of control into random smear campaigns to try to destroy someone personally. the facts that have come out have not corroborated any of the accusations. in fact, they have done the opposite. but it's done tremendous damage to a family and to a reputation

of someone who has served our country admirably for a long time. up until the last two weeks had a stellar reputation which has been trashed for political gain. i grieve for the people that have experienced sexual assaults in their life. i spent 22 years working with students in youth ministry, and i met lots of families. i they have had lots of pain in their life. it is very real in america how we deal with sexual assault. people need to believe and things need to be taken seriously. but when the facts all come out, we also have to make decisions based on the facts, not on the accusations. this is a case we have to be able to deal with the facts. i will vote for judge brett

kavanaugh to be on the supreme court, based on his decades of record, based on now seven f.b.i. background checks about him, based on 65 ladies that have come forward that knew him from high school and college that said this is the brett kavanaugh that we knew, and it doesn't seem anything like all these accusations. based on 150 different people that the f.b.i. privately interviewed and asked about his alcohol use over the past 20 years, even reaching back to college, for instance, say was he ever out of control in his alcohol use? all of them saying no. all of them saying no. not based on a couple of recent accusations. over decades of history. now, i get there are people that will disagree on this for political reasons, or they may not like brett kavanaugh's positions on legal issues. i get that. but let's not smear a man's

reputation forever because we don't like his opinions on something. where do i think we go from here? i think there is something we can gain as a nation from this painful experience. if there is any one piece of advice that i could pass on to the country as a whole and to us as leaders is to encourage families in taking care of their kids. as i read all these stories, i have gone through all of them. all of them show some markers in it that i look at and say there is some need for some conversation. i think moms and dads should sit down with their daughters and should lovingly say to them if there is ever anything that happens to you, if any boy ever does something inappropriate to you, if he ever touches you in any way, we want you to know that we love you, we believe in you, and you can come tell us right away, because we want to make it right as soon as

possible. do not be afraid to come talk to us about it. we will not blame you. we want to make it right. that conversation that moms and dads can have with their daughters could have great benefit to a lot of daughters for a long time. there is a conversation that moms and dads need to have with their sons and daughters about alcohol use, because in all of the stories that i have read, all of them involve teenaged drinking, all of them. dr. ford admitted drinking at the party, even as she described. all of them involved drinking and drug use. there is a conversation that moms and dads can have with their kids, because i, quite frankly, have met way too many parents that have said i know my kids are going to drink. i just tell them not to drink and drive. if they are going to drink, just stay over there or come to our house and drink and that will be fine. well, it's not fine. there are an awful lot of 15 and 16-year-olds that do not have the maturity to handle alcohol, and when parents sign off on it and say that's okay, they need

to understand there are very real consequences. i have not asked judge kavanaugh about it, but i bet he would love to take back some of his drinking when he was in high school and college. wait until he is more mature, because he was telling painful stories. i encourage parents to be parents and to step up and help protect their kids so they can make better decisions. it may be a good lesson for us as a nation to be able to pass on to our kids. and one last lesson. we have got to learn how to disagree about political issues without destroying someone personally for the sake of gain on anything in politics. we have got to learn this lesson, because in the days ahead, no matter what your political party is, no matter who is president, no matter who is nominated, we want the best and brightest of our country to

step up. we want them all to be able to come serve their country. and i have not met a perfect person. what's been interesting to me is the number of times that i have had democratic colleagues say to me in the last week and a half, you know, i really hope they don't go through my high school record like we're going through judge kavanaugh's record. the number of times i have heard folks say, you know what i really want said at the committee hearing? i want someone to step up and say he who is without sin should cast the first stone. but that hasn't been said. maybe an ounce of compassion and a tremendous amount of affection for those who have suffered greatly from assault would be of great benefit to us as a nation, as a community, and as a senate. with that, mr. president, i yield back.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. mr. lankford: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under

the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 636. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 636 recognizing suicide as a serious public health problem and expressing support for the designation of september as national suicide prevention month. the presiding officer: is there objection in proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on the

judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 642 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 642 designating the week of september 15 through september 22, 2018, as national estuaries week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the white house amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of 66 -- s. res. 668 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 668 designating october 5, 2018, as energy efficiency day and so

forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 669 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 669 supporting the designation of september 2018 as national alcohol and drug addiction recovery month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the

preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 397, s. 995. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 3 # 7 -- 397, s. 995, a bill to provide for equitable compensation to the spokane tribe of indians and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 553, s. 440. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 533, s. 440, a bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain federal property around the dickenson reservoir in the state of north dakota. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 537, s. 2074.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 537, s. 2074, a bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain federal property around the jamestown reservoir in the state of north dakota and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, and that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. friday, october 5. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired. the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the kavanaugh nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? with