way over several congresses. the victims against child abuse act which even now i'm working with a bipartisan team to try and get through this chamber to get reauthorized. there are many more i think so this we can and should do to work to combat sexual abuse, sexual assault and 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 my nation and the world, that may well be watching this moment in the united states, to those whose stories i've just shared and whose stories i've just heard, i simply wanted to say this, you have touched my heart deeply. i hear you and i thank you. that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> call the roll. >> it has been just over a week since supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh and christine

blasey ford testified before the senate judiciary committee. this morning the full senate will vote to limit debate on the kavanaugh nomination. that procedural vote is set for 10:30 eastern. if that passes we could see a final vote for judge kavanaugh to be on the supreme court by tomorrow. now, live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our help in ages past and hope for years to come, we honor your name. today, have mercy upon us according to your loving kindness and tender mercies. have your way in this chamber and in the hearts of our

lawmakrs. lord, our senators are the clay and you are the divine potter. using your wisdom, mercy,and might, mold and make our legislators to be instruments of your divine purposes. give them the courage and wisdom to surrender and yield to the unfolding of your unstoppable providence, as they acknowledge that our times are in your hands. we pray in your sovereign name, amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 5, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable shelley moore capito, a senator from the state of west virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, supreme court of the united states. brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: grass would you inform me of the amount of time i have to speak. the presiding officer: there's been no time agreement made. mr. grassley: thank you. justice kennedy announced his retirement from the supreme court. shortly thereafter on july 9 the president announced -- announced the nomination of brett kavanaugh to serve as the newest

justice. judge kavanaugh has spent 25 years of his career in public service. he's spent the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit, considered the second most important federal court in the country. his record there has been extremely impressive because the supreme court is, as an example, adopted judge kavanaugh's opinions no fewer than a dozen times. judge kavanaugh is also a pillar in his community and also in the legal profession. he serves underprivileged communities, coaches girls bipartisan, and is a lecter at his church. he has the shown a deep commitment to preparing young lawyers for their careers. he has been a law professor at three prestigious law schools and it a mentor to dozens of judicial law clerks.

this should have been a respectable and dignified confirmation process. in a previous year -- in a previous era, this highly qualified nominee would have received unanimous consent in the senate. before left-wing outside groups and democratic leaders had him in their sights, judge kavanaugh possessed an impeccable reputation and was held in high esteem by the bench and the bar alike. even the american bar association, which the democrats say is their gold standard for judging judges, the a.b.a. gave him their unanimous well-qualified rating. what left-wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh is nothing short of monstrous. i saw what they did to robert

bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we've witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left-wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning, before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said that he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote-unquote, complicit in

evil. another suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings, publications, documents from judge kavanaugh's executive branch service. this is on top of the 307 judicial opinions that he authored. despite democrats' efforts to bury the committee and in even more paperwork, the senate judiciary committee held a timely four-day hearing on judge kavanaugh's nomination last month. judge kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours over the course of three days.

judge kavanaugh showed the nation exactly why he deserved to be on the supreme court because of his qualifications. judge kavanaugh's antagonizers couldn't land a punch on him during those -- his three days of testimony, even when they made false or misleading arguments, they couldn't touch him. some of my colleagues accused judge kavanaugh of committing perjury. for that false claim, "the washington post" fact-checker awarded my colleague three pinocchios. another colleague claimed judge kavanaugh described contraceptives as abortion-inducing drugs. the video that my colleague shared on the internet was doctored to omit the fact that judge kavanaugh was describing the plaintiff's claims in a case that he decided, not his own

views. my colleague was awarded four pinocchios, and that, of course, is the most pinocchios you can get. but they still had one big card to play, which they had kept away up their sleeves for a month -- actually for 45 days i think. by july the ranking member received a letter from dr. christine blasey ford alleging that judge kavanaugh sexually assaulted here in high school 36 years ago. instead of referring dr. ford to the f.b.i. or sharing these allegations with her colleagues, either of which would have respected and preserved dr. ford's confidentiality -- and that's what dr. ford requested -- the ranking member referred dr. ford to democratic

activist attorneys closely tied to the clintons. the ranking member shamefully sat on these allegations for nearly seven weeks, only to reveal them at the 11th hour when it appeared judge kavanaugh was headed towards confirmation because he was so qualified. the ranking member had numerous opportunities to raise these allegations with judge kavanaugh personally. i will eight give you six -- i'll give you six examples. she could have discussed them with judge kavanaugh during their private meeting on august 20, a meeting which took place after her staff had sent dr. ford to democratic lawyers or another time shared them with 64 of her senate colleagues who also met with him individually. the ranking member's staff could have raised them with judge

kavanaugh during a background investigation follow-up call in late august. senators could have asked judge kavanaugh about the allegations during his 32 hours of testimony over the course of three days. judiciary members could have asked judge kavanaugh about this in their closed session of the hearing, which the ranking member didn't attend. the closed session is the appropriate place to bring up issues where confidentiality is supposed to be respected, and there were no questions about these allegations among the 1,300 written questions sent to judge kavanaugh after the hearing. this amounts to more than more written questions submitted to this nominee after a hearing than to all supreme court nominees combined.

keeping the july 30 letter secret deprescribed senators of having all the facts that -- deprived senators of having all the facts they needed to have about this nomination. so it wasn't then until september 13 -- july 30 to september 13, on the eve of the confirmation vote, that the ranking member referred them to the f.b.i. and somehow they were leaked to the press. it wasn't until those news reports on september 16 that i learned even of of dr. ford's identity. this is an outrage. the political motives behind the democrats' actions should be obvious to everyone. dr. ford requested the opportunity to tell her story to the senate judiciary committee. after a lot of foot-dragging by dr. ford's attorneys, they finally agreed to a public hearing.

as promised, i provided a safe, comfortable, and dignified forum for dr. ford as well as judge kavanaugh. dr. ford was sincere in her testimony, as was judge kavanaugh, who emphatically denied the allegations. it's true that confirmation hearings aren't a trial, but trials have rules based on commonsense notions of fairness and due process -- not the other way around. it is a fundamental aspect of fairness, a fundamental aspect of due process that the accuser have the burden of proving allegations. judge kavanaugh was publicly accused of a crime and his reputation and livelihood were at stake, so it was only fair that his accuser have the burden of proof. the consensus is that the burden was not met. ultimately, the existing evidence, including the

statements of three alleged eyewitnesses named by dr. ford, refuted dr. ford's version of the facts. our investigative nominee counsel rachel mitchell, who has nearly 25 years of experience advocating for sexual assault victims and investigating sex crimes, concluded that there was lack of specificity and simply too many inconsistences in dr. ford's allegations to establish that judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault, even under the lowest standard approved, she concluded, quote, a he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event, so those witnesses either refuted her allegation or failed to recorroborate them. for the reasons discussed below, i don't think that a reasonable prosecutor could bring this case

based upon the evidence before the committee, nor do i believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard, end of quote. so we have thoroughly investigated judge kavanaugh's background. in addition to the prior six f.b.i. full field background investigations with interviews of nearly 150 people who have known judge kavanaugh his entire life, the committee also separately and thoroughly investigated every credible allegation that we received. our more than 20 committee staff members have worked night and day over the last many weeks tracking down virtually all leads, and at the request of the undecided members, the f.b.i. reopened judge kavanaugh's background investigation for another week. the f.b.i. interviewed 10 more people related to the latest credible sexual assault allegations, and the f.b.i. confirmed what we senate investigators already concluded. that is this -- there is nothing

in the supplemental f.b.i. background investigation report that we didn't already know. these uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by judge kavanaugh, and neither the judiciary committee nor the f.b.i. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. there also is no contemporaneous evidence. this investigation found no hint of misconduct, and the same is true of six prior f.b.i. investigations conducted during judge kavanaugh's 25 years of public service. nothing an investigator, including career f.b.i. special agents, does will ever be good enough to satisfy democrat leaderships in washington who

staked out opposition to judge kavanaugh before he was even nominated. there is simply no reason then to deny judge kavanaugh a seat on the supreme court on the basis of the evidence presented to us. the democratic strategy used against judge kavanaugh has made one thing clear. they will never be satisfied, no matter how fair and thorough the process is. 31 years ago, the senate democrats' treatment of robert bork, their playbook remains the same. for the left wing, advice and consent has become search and destroy, a demolition derby. i'm pleased to support judge kavanaugh's confirmation. i'm sorry for what the whole family went through the last several weeks. we should all admire kavanaugh's willingness to serve his country despite the way he has been treated. it would be a travesty then if

the senate did not congresswomen the most qualified nomination in our nation's history. the multitude of allegations against him have proved to be false. they have also proven that no discussion of his equal if -- qualifications -- discussion of his qualifications, nothing showed he wasn't qualified. we had a campaign of distraction from his outstanding qualifications, a campaign of destruction of this fine individual. what we have learned is the resistance that has existed since the day after the november, 2016, election is centered right here on capitol hill. they have encouraged mob rule. when you hear things about get in their face, bother people at

every restaurant where you can find a cabinet member, these are coming from public certificate vants that ought -- servants that ought to set an example of civility in american society. and it's been made worse by what has happened to judge kavanaugh. i hope we can say no to mob rule by voting to confirm judge kavanaugh. i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i understand that in the order i have 15 minutes, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. madam president, this has been my ninth supreme court nomination hearing, and i must say i have never experienced anything like this. never before have we had a supreme court nominee where over 90% of his record has been

hidden from the public and the senate. never before have we had a nominee display such flagrant partisanship and open hostility at a hearing. and never before have we had a nominee facing allegations of sexual assault. the nominee before us being considered for a pivotal swing seat, if confirmed, would be the deciding vote on some of the most important and divisive issues of our day. i'd like to start by speaking about some of the issues in relationship to judge kavanaugh. president trump promised to only nominate individuals to the supreme court who would be pro-life and pro-gun nominees, who would automatically overturn roe v. wade. in my judgment, judge kavanaugh clearly meets the test. in a speech in 2017, judge

kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his dissent in roe v. wade where he challenged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year, judge kavanaugh argued in a dissent in a texas case that a jane doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. if adopted, this argument could rewrite supreme court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision, even in cases, as is in this one, where she had gone before a court. his reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is willing to disregard precedent but his opinions fail to

appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether roe and casey were settled law and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. roe v. wade, as we all know, is one of a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide who could marry, where to send your children to school, what kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life, as well as whether and when to have a family. the government cannot interfere with these decisions according to these cases. another issue that gives me great pause is judge kavanaugh's extreme view on guns. in reviewing his record and judicial opinions, it's clear his views go well beyond simply

being pro-gun. during a lecture at notre dame law school, judge kavanaugh himself said he would be, quote, the first to acknowledge that most lower court judges have disagreed with his view on the second amendment. specifically, in district of columbia v. heller, judge kavanaugh wrote in a deciding opinion that unless guns were regulated, either at the time the constitution was written or traditionally throughout history, they cannot be regulated now, end quote. in his own words, gun laws are unconstitutional unless they are, quote, traditional or common in the united states, end quote. judge kavanaugh would have struck down d.c.'s assault weapons ban because they have not historically been banned. this logic means that as weapons become more advanced and more

dangerous, they cannot be regulated at all. when i asked judge kavanaugh about his views that if a gun is in common use, it cannot be regulated, he replied this way, and i quote. there are millions and millions and millions of semiautomatic rifles that are possessed, so that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon, end quote. think about that. judge kavanaugh made up a new standard that had nothing to do with common use, but instead relied on whether a gun is widely possessed and owned as determinative as to whether it is subject to any regulation. the united states makes up 4% of the worldwide population, but we own 42% of the world's guns. by judge kavanaugh's standard, no state or locality will be able to place any limitation on guns because of widespread

ownership in this country. i'm also concerned about his views on presidential power. specifically he has said that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, cannot be prosecuted, should not be investigated, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. in other words, the president of the united states is above and outside the law. these views raise serious concerns that should concern us all, especially at a time when the president continually threatens to fire the leadership of the department of justice for failing to be loyal and reining in the mueller investigation. these views alone are not sufficient for me to vote against judge kavanaugh, but what we have seen and experienced in the past several weeks has raised serious new concerns, concerns i believe

should worry us all. judges are expected to be, quote, evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, and courteous, end quote. however, at the hearing last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. judge kavanaugh raised his voice. he interrupted senators. he accused democrats of, quote, lying in wait, end quote, and replacing, quote, advice and consent with search and destroy, end quote. he even went so far as to say that dr. ford's allegations were nothing more than, quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with pentup anger about president trump and the 2016 election, end quote. quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons, end quote. how could he?

this behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence that is unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the united states supreme court. his display was so shocking that more than 2400 law professors from -- 2,400 law professors from around the country have expressed their opposition. they wrote, and i quote, instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, judge kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and at times was discourteous to senators, end quote. the professors concluded, and i quote, we have differing views about other qualifications of judge kavanaugh, but we are united as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions in believing he did

not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to enter a full copy of the letter in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. finally, i want to mention the serious and credible allegations raised by dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, the two women who came forward to tell their experiences facing sexual assault. when dr. ford decided to make her story public, she faced all her worst fears. she was harassed, she received death threats. she had to relocate her home, her husband, and two children. and yet, in less than a week, she came before the senate and told 21 senators she had never met, along with millions of

americans, about the most tragic, traumatic, and difficult experience of her life. and she did so with poise, grace, and most importantly bravery. unfortunately, she was met with partisanship and hostility. my republican colleagues have largely chosen to ignore her powerful testimony. senators weren't allowed to hear from any witnesses who could corroborate or refute her account. they refused to gather evidence or do an impartial investigation into her allegations. deborah ramirez also reluctantly came forward to tell her story. like dr. ford, miss ramirez offered to speak to the f.b.i. both ford and ramirez submitted evidence to support their allegations, including naming

over two dozen witnesses each. unfortunately, the limited investigation that was conducted by the f.b.i. failed to interview any one of the witnesses these two women identified who could support her account. let me say that again. they refused to investigate, to talk with any of the 24 witnesses that could have supported their accounts. mr. president, i think it's important to remember why we're here today. we're here to determine whether judge kavanaugh has demonstrated the impartiality, the temperament, the evenhandedness that's needed to serve on this great high court of our land. if confirmed, he will join eight other individuals who are charged with deciding how the laws of our land are interpreted

and applied. he would be a deciding vote on the most important issues affecting our country, and every american for generations to come. mr. president -- madam president, based on all the factors we have before us, i do not believe judge kavanaugh has earned this seat. thank you.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: democrati c leader. mr. schumer: thank you, thank you, madam president. now, madam president, from start to finish president trump's nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court will go down as one of the saddest, most sordid chapters in the long history of the federal judiciary.

the well was poisoned from the outset when president trump selected judge kavanaugh from a list of names preapproved by hard-right special interest groups for whom the national interest is a trifling concern compared to repealing roe v. wade, cutting people's health care, and achieving a partisan majority on the supreme court. the lot worsened when the republican majority on the judiciary committee shielded the bulk of judge kavanaugh's records from the public, discarding decades of bipartisan precedent and thwarting norms of transparency and of fairness. and finally the dam broke under the weight of credible allegations that judge kavanaugh committed a sexual assault in high school. in 2018 the republican majority

conducted a hearing that made the anita hill hearings in 1991 look fair by comparison. in this hearing there were no corroborating witnesses on either side, no independent investigation of the facts to inform the questioning. they even hired an outside counsel to put a witness, dr. ford, on trial. only at the 11th hour urging of break-away members of their caucus republicans submitted reluctantly to a one-week investigation of the allegations, an investigation which was then severely circumscribed by the white house. our republican friends blame us for this process. they're always finding a straw man. but nothing could be farther from the truth. first they blame us for delay,

knowing full well that majority leader mcconnell has complete control of when nominees are brought to the floor. leader mcconnell could have moved this nominee two weeks ago or one week ago. democrats had no say and don't when it comes to who comes to the floor. but in each case leader mcconnell couldn't move the nominee forward because he was blocked by fellow republicans, not democrats, from moving forward. when it comes to complaining about delay, two words never come from our republican friends' lips: merrick garland. republicans are also saying we engaged in, quote, a smear campaign where the politics of personal destruction with this nomination. in reality again, they're using democrats as a straw man because what they're really talking

about is what dr. ford said. democrats did not induce her to come forward. her conscience did, and our republican friends -- are our republican friends accusing dr. ford and her deeply held memories of what happened to her of a smear campaign? are they accusing dr. ford of a smear campaign, of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? because that is who they're actually blaming. they're decrying her testimony and then trying to blame democrats. i don't blame them. they have a flawed nominee. they don't want the focus on the nominee. when future americans look back at these proceedings, let them draw no lessons from the senate's conduct here. let them look back on this chapter as the shameful

culmination of the scorched earth politics practiced by the hard right in america. people who will stop at nothing to entrench an advantage on our nation's courts. let the confirmation process for judge kavanaugh be recorded as a sorry epilogue to the bray is -- brazen theft of justice scalia's seat, the i go -- the ignominious end on the confirmation of supreme court justices. and for what? for whom are republican leaders willing to discard fairness to confirm? judge brett kavanaugh certainly the product of an elite education but also someone with hard right conservative jurisprudence far, far away from what average americans

believe. why most democrats opposed his nomination at the outset feels like ancient history now, but let us not forget that most importantly we strongly disagree with a number of judge kavanaugh's views. he's deeply skeptical of unenumerated rights, including a woman's right to make fundamentally private decisions about her medical care. he's deeply skeptical of the government's role in protecting americans with preexisting conditions. he's deeply skeptical of nearly all rules and regulations that protect consumers, workers, the environment. and the flashing red light warning sign at the center of judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence are his views on executive power and accountability. somehow this conservative judge

and scholar of the discussion sees at the heart of american democracy a president whom king, an executive who's unaccountable to the laws he's sworn to uphold ahead of state who whileness office should be beyond -- who while in office should be beyond the reach of subpoenas, criminal investigations or civil investigations. this moment in american history demands deep skepticism about judge kavanaugh's views on executive power. nominated as he was by an executive who disdains the constraints of his office and who is at this very moment the apparent subject of investigations his supreme court nominee believes should be invalid. i met with judge kavanaugh for almost two hours, and i asked him about all of those issues. his answers were constantly

evasive and utterly unsatisfactory. it was day shah view all over -- deja vu all over again in the first round of hearings when judge kavanaugh deliberately avoided talking about his views on roe, health care, presidential accountability, and more. there was no legal reason, rule, or logic that prevented him from being clear and saying what he thought. he was evasive because he knows that his views are deeply at odds with the progress america has made over the last century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most americans believe. his performance was not only unfair and frustrating to the senate, it was unfair to the american people. when a nominee refuses to disclose their views, chances are you have a nominee whose

views are far outside the mainstream of america, whether they be far right or far left. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not have as grave a concern about these views as we do, but let no american be surprised if judge kavanaugh becomes a decisive vote to restrict the rights and privileges of the american people while stretching the bounds of privilege for the current occupant of the white house. judge kavanaugh's nomination ultimately does not only encompass questions of ideological or credentials -- ideology or credentials, but questions of character. here again judge kavanaugh falls woefully short of what americans expect and deserve in a supreme court justice. he has repeatedly misled the senate about his involvement in some of the most serious controversies of the bush

administration, including warrantless wiretapping of american citizens, our policy against torture, the theft of electronic records from democratic senators, and his involvement in the nomination of very controversial judges. faced with credible allegations of various types of misconduct, judge kavanaugh's credibility was again tested and he continued to dissemble and even prevaricate about easily refruited facts. beyond the credibility judge kavanaugh presented to the senate the bitterest partisan testimony i have ever heard coming from a candidate seeking the senate's approval whether they be for the bench or for the executive branch. now there are many who think that what happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old should not be dispositive, even if you believe that, his

actions at age 53 in terms of demeanor, partisanship, and above all, credibility should be dispositive. judges judge at every level of the federal bench should be held to the highest standard. judges at every level should be judicious and credible and independent, but especially, especially on the supreme court. i do not see how it is possible for my colleagues to say with perfect confidence that judge kavanaugh has the temperament, independence, and credibility to serve on the united states supreme court. so i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why judge kavanaugh? there is no dictate that you have to march blindly forward with a nominee when there are others available to you.

there are many judges who i'm sure conservatives would be happy to have on the court. i'd remind my colleagues, the seat that brett kavanaugh aspires to fill was held by a justice who assumed the bench after one nominee was voted down by the senate and a second nominee withdrew his nomination. but the republican majority has pressed forward blindly on judge kavanaugh, even when brave women came forward to speak truth to power. why? for what cause? for the sake of winning? that's not reason enough. my colleagues on the other side, if you have doubts about judge kavanaugh's credibility, about his ability to tell the truth, about his ability to be impartial and nonpartisan, no matter what you think of his jurisprudence or what he may or may not have done in high school

and college, you should not vote to confirm him to the supreme court. so, my friends, democrat and republican, for all the controversy, all the heavyhandedness of the process, all the hyperbole and vilification of both sides, there's always hope that the senate can save itself. we can salvage some decency here at the end. if judge kavanaugh is rejected, president trump will select another nominee, likely right of center, probably not to my liking, but without the cloud that hangs over this nominee, and we can proceed to consider that nominee in a much less bitter -- much better, less partisan way. a bipartisan majority of senators considering fully the

weight of judge kavanaugh's testimony, record, credibility, trustworthiness and temperament, considering fully the heartbreaking testimony of dr. christine blasey ford, can vote to reject judge kavanaugh's nomination and ask the president to send the senate another name. for the sake of the senate, of the supreme court, and of america, i hope -- i pray my colleagues will do so.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it was 88 days ago that president trump announced his nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to fill the current vacancy on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh is a nominee of the very highest caliber. a brilliant legal mind, an accomplished jurist, with a proven devotion to the rule of law. today the senate has the opportunity to advance his nomination. every one of us will go on record with one of the most consequential votes you ever cast in the senate. now, the stakes are always high for a supreme court nomination, but, colleagues, the extraordinary events of recent weeks have raised an even higher

-- raised them even higher this time. when we vote later this morning, we will not only be deciding whether to elevate a stunningly well-qualified judge to our highest court -- not anymore, not after all this; the united states senate will also be making a statement -- whether to state that partisan politics -- or we'll reaffirm that in the united states of america everyone is innocent until provennen guilty. we'll either state that facts and evidence can simply be brushed aside when politically inconvenient and signal that media bullying and mob intimidation are valid tactics for shaping the senate. the mob can attack and the

senate caves. or we'll stand up and say that serious, thoughtful, fact-based deliberation will still define this body. we'll either give notice that totally uncorroborated allegations are now officially -- officially -- enough to destroy an american's life or we'll declare that our society cannot, must not, will not set the bar so low. so, madam president, today is a pivotal day in the nomination process of this excellent judge. but it's a pivotal day for us here in the senate as well. the idea of a justice that has served our nation so well for so long are on full display. so let's step back and sample a

few of the choice moments that the senate and the american people have been treated to during the disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, spectacle of the last two weeks. the very night judge kavanaugh was announced as the president's choice, we heard the junior senator from arkansas declare that this nominee would pave the way to tyranny. his audience? crowds of far-left protesters still filling in the blanks. they weren't sure who the nominee was going to be yet. we've heard the senator from new jersey describe judge kavanaugh's nomination as a great moral struggle in which there are just two camps. you're either complicit in the evil or you're fighting against it. more recently, we've heard the junior senator from hawaii argue that her personal disagreement

with judge kavanaugh's judicial philosophy meant -- now listen to this -- he deserved less of a presumption of innocence when it came to allegation of misconduct you disagree with her, you're not entitled to the presumption of innocence when it comes to allegations of misconduct. that's from a member of the judiciary committee? that's the definition of due process? apparently you get due process only if you agree with her. and even more recently we saw the junior senator from rhode island hold forth with great confidence -- great confidence -- offering his expert interpretations of goofy jokes in high school yearbooks from the early 1980's. that was incredibly enlightening. innocent jokes? beer-drinking references? oh, no ... our colleague was

quite positive there. must be some other sinister meanings at play. until of course a number of judge kavanaugh's classmates set him straight earlier this week. so stop and consider these snapshots -- the absurdity, the absurdity, the indignity. this is our approach to confirming a supreme court justice? this is the senate's contribution to public discourse? before the ink had dried on justice kennedy's retirement, our democratic colleagues made it perfectly clear what this process would be about. delay, obstruct, and resist. and before the ink had dried on judge kavanaugh's nomination, colleagues across the aisle, including democrats members of the judiciary committee, were

racing to announce they had made up their minds and were totally opposed to his confirmation. mere hours after judge kavanaugh was nominated, my friend, the democratic leader, promised, quote, i will oppose him with everything i've got, he said. hours after he was nominated. it was, thus, abundantly clear that his number-one political goal was to defeat the nomination by any means necessary. it was right there from the beginning, madam president. a clear declaration, plain as day -- nothing, nothing could get most democrats to consider this nominee with an open mind. it would be delaying tactics, obstruction, and so-called resistance until the final vote was called. for a few weeks their efforts played out along the lines that sad lay have become somewhat

ordinary around here. there were excuses for delay. those fell flat. there were gross distortions of judge kavanaugh's record, that were batted down by outside fact-checkers. and there were all the usual phony apocalyptic accusations. hostile to women, hostile to vulnerable people, hostile to workers. same old tricks. same old playbook. but here was the problem -- the old plays weren't working. the distortions were being literally drowned out by the facts. senators received and reviewed more pages of background materials on judge kavanaugh's nomination than for every previous supreme court nomination combined. we read judge kavanaugh's 12-year record of judicial rulings from our nation's second

highest court -- 300-plus opinions. we heard sworn testimony, written accounts from hundreds of character witnesses from all stages of judge kavanaugh's life and career. and the picture painted by these facts was nothing like the character, nothing like the caricature. so it was clear, madam president, the old tactics weren't working. wasn't going to get the job done. the resistance demanded more. try something new, they said. well, we all know what happened next. uncorroborated allegations of the most sensitive, most serious sort were quickly sharpened into political weapons. one such allegation shared by dr. ford in confidence with the democratic side of the judiciary committee somehow, mysteriously

found its way into the press. well, chairman grassley immediately set out on a sober, focused search for the truth. a new hearing was organized and most recently asked for the supplemental f.b.i. background investigation -- judge kavanaugh's seventh, seventh f.b.i. investigation. by any fair standard the facts, the actual facts, proved to be straight forward. no corroborating evidence -- none, none -- was produced to support any of the allegations leveled against judge kavanaugh. no corroborating evidence from the f.b.i. inquiry. or from anywhere else -- nothing. well, that wasn't enough for our democratic colleagues, of course. the facts were not exactly the point. after all, we sort of get it by

now. when the very f.b.i. investigation for which they've been clamoring turned up no new evidence, the democrats moved the goalpost yet again. i believe the latest story is that the whole investigation is invalid -- now, listen to this -- because individuals who had only recently been told secondhand or thirdhand about nearly 40-year-old allegations weren't treated as essential witnesses. the latest story is that the whole investigation is invalid because individuals who had only recently been told secondhand or thirdhand about nearly 40-year-old allegations weren't treated as essential witnesses. never mind that they didn't actually witness anything. they didn't witness anything. so let's be clear, madam president. these are not witnesses. these are people supposedly in

possession of hearsay that they first heard 35 years after the supposed fact. what nonsense. the people whom dr. ford claimed were witnesses, they have spoken with the f.b.i. we know that because they, through their attorneys, put out public statements saying so. and what we know now is what we knew at this time a week ago. there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for these allegations. the same thing we heard a week ago. if there were, you bet we would have heard about it, but there isn't. so notwithstanding that, madam president, the leak of drn of her privacy and against her wishes opened the floodgates. the feeding frenzy was full on.

the weaponization of her letter by the left led to a torrent of other equally uncorroborated allegations. they were dumped on judge kavanaugh and his family. and breathlessly, breathlessly the media seized on them. the more outlandish the better. americans were informed that judge kavanaugh masterminded violent drug gangs as a young teenager until that accuser walked her story back. we were informed that judge kavanaugh beat someone up on a boat in a rhode island harbor until that accuser totally recanted. we heard another tall tale of physical assault until that account was thoroughly debunked by a sitting federal judge. oh, yes, we were informed that juvenile jokes in his high school yearbook were actually sinister secret references.

oh, the keystone cops were on the case. the keystone kops were on the case, madam president. and senate democrats cheered them on. they read parts of this uncorroborated, unbelievable mudslide, mudslide into the senate record. they cited them an unofficial letter demanding that judge kavanaugh's nomination be withdrawn. were they true? well, of course, that was quite beside the point. quite beside the point. so long as they were convenient. every effort was made to ensure that the fact-free verdict of the mob and the media would win out over the actual evidence. make sure the mob prevailed. but the uncorroborated mud and

the partisan noise and the physical intimidation of members here in the senate will not have the final say around here. the senate will have the final say. so, madam president, we're almost at the end of the runway, the cross rims of aipger -- crosswinds of anger and fear and partisanship have blown strong these past weeks. they have harmed a good man and his family. they have tarnished the dignity of this institution. but all of it can end today. the time has come to vote. the senate stands on the threshold of a golden opportunity. we have the opportunity to advance the nomination of an incredibly well qualified and well-respected jurist to the post that demands such excellence. we have the opportunity to put judge kavanaugh on the supreme court where his distinguished

service will make us and our nation proud for years to come. but we have the opportunity to do even more. today we can send a message to the american people that some core principles remain unfettered by the partisan passions of this moment. facts matter. fairness matters. the presumption of sentence is sacrosanct. the senate has turned its back on these things before, madam president, but never for long and never without deep regret. this institution does not look back proudly on the era of joseph mccarthy, nor on any of the other times when the politics of personal destruction poison its judgment. no, no, the senate looks back on those things with shame and with a conviction that we cannot go

down that road again. we know the senate is better than this. we know the nation deserves better than this. by confirming judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, this brilliant jurist will be charged with upholding the rule of law and honoring american justice. we must hold ourselves to that very same standard. we must seize the golden opportunity before us today to confirm a supreme court justice who will make us proud. and to reaffirm our own commitment to the justice that every single american deserves. the presiding officer: as a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh

to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

is --. the presiding officer: senators not reported. mr. carper: i vote no.

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote? as a reminder to our guests in the galleries, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. on this vote the yeas are 51. the noes are 49. the motion is agreed to.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. cornyn: could we have order in the senate, please? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cornyn: madam president, as the world knows now, we just held a successful cloture vote on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to become the next associate justice on the united states supreme court, and i'm glad we were successful in closing off debate. we now know that under the

senate rules, 30 hours are available for senators to debate, and i'm sure there will be testimony senators who will be coming to the floor and offering their thoughts. but to my mind, what the senate just voted for was to end the characterization, the games, the intimidation tactics that unfortunately have compromised so much of this nomination process. our vote today was important not only because it will allow us to move forward and conclude this confirmation process, but it was important because it shows the united states senate will not be intimidated. we will not be bullied by the screams of paid protesters and name calling by the mob. we will not be complicit in the attempts to tarnish a good man's character, destroy his career, and further delay this confirmation process, a constitutional process of advice and consent. what has been particularly

galling on the part of some of our colleagues over the last 24 hours is the fact that the f.b.i. investigation that they called for they are virtually ignoring or in some cases disparaging. they have called for that supplemental background investigation just last friday. let's all remember what our friend, the senior senator from minnesota, said, for example, last weekend. she said let's give this one week. well, that's what we gave them. the junior senator from delaware asked for the same period of time at the hearing, a one-week-long f.b.i. investigation. so our colleagues got what they asked for, and unfortunately since they had already decided to vote against the nomination, they must have been somewhat disappointed that the supplemental background investigation came up with no new information, no corroboration at all.

now, i actually think in some ways our colleagues who called for a one-week delay can done us a favor because every lead that could be followed has been followed and exhausted, and as the majority was saying earlier in america, under our constitutional system where we don't presume that you're guilty and require you to prove your innocence and where we believe in due process of law, i think the f.b.i. investigation was a useful way to demonstrate to the american people that none of these allegations that have been made against judge kavanaugh of sexual misconduct have been proven. it also, i think, gives us a chance to pivot from what has been a shameful and disgraceful confirmation process. if this is the new norm for the senate that somebody could be denied a confirmation based on

an unproven allegation, i can't imagine people being willing to subject themselves to that in the future, and it would be a dark day for the senate and for the united states and for our system of justice that believes in a fair process and a constitutional presumption of innocence, and when an allegation is made that the person making that allegation actually has to come forward with some evidence. a number of senators, actually it was a bipartisan consensus, wanted the fib to conduct a limited -- the f.b.i. to conduct an investigation into the credible allegations that were pending. they wanted the f.b.i. to interview individuals like mark judge who had already offered a sworn statement under penalty of felony and others who may have had information that were

identified by dr. ford as being present on the day that this alleged activity took place. there was no confirmation. there was no corroboration. in fact, there was a refutation. the people she said were there and could be witnesses, were witnesses to what happened said i have no knowledge of that. dr. ford's best friend, leland keyser, said i don't even know brett kavanaugh. i've never met him. well, we have all had an opportunity to read the confidential report. we have seen who was interviewed, what they were asked, and any doubts that people may have had should now have been put to rest by what the contents revealed. these fantasies about judge kavanaugh being some sort of serial high school or college predator have been exposed as

only that -- myths. not based on fact. there is no reliable evidence whatsoever to support any of these baseless allegations against judge kavanaugh. but as we know, this wasn't exactly designed to be a truth-finding process. this wasn't a search for the truth. our colleagues across the aisle had already made up their mind a long time ago, some even before judge kavanaugh had been nominated. this was more of a -- as the majority leader said earlier today, not a search for the truth but a search and destroy mission, and obviously they as they continue to move the goalpost, calling for more delays, more investigations, there have been seven background investigations by the f.b.i. of judge kavanaugh during his public service. the f.b.i. has talked to more than 150 witnesses.

don't you think if there were anything to these outrageous allegations that some of that would have come up at some point in the seven f.b.i. background investigations that have been conducted? but our colleagues across the aisle continue to resist, putting a definitive end to this process, and unfortunately caring little, if any, about the reputation of somebody who has demonstrated his outstanding qualifications and his commitment to public service. i think some of these attacks have become exhausted, politically exhausted, frankly. our colleagues don't seem to realize what they have unleashed. when senators get coat hangers mailed to their home. protesters, paid protesters show up on their doorstep or at their

office or are accosted in the halls of the united states congress. paid protesters who reportedly once they get arrested actually make more money from their funders than they do if they don't get arrested. that is what has been unleashed. chairman grassley called it mob rule. that's exactly right. where the judiciary committee during the first confirmation hearing for judge kavanaugh where senators said i'm breaking the rules. i'm releasing committee-confidential information. i know the rules prohibit me from doing, and they don't care. if there are no rules and there are no norms and if we don't have enough respect for this institution and the people whose lives we touch, this is what gets unleashed. i feel badly for dr. ford in particular. she wanted none of this

three-ring circus. she sent a letter to the ranking member and asked that her identity remain confidential, only to find, after the first confirmation hearing, that it was leaked to the press, and then the press came to talk to her, and i guess she figured she had nothing else -- no other recourse but to actually tell her story to the press once her wishes were violated. she didn't consent to that. she didn't authorize the release of that confidential letter where she -- to the press, but that's what happened. when we gave her an opportunity to have a bipartisan professional investigation staff come out to california and interview her confidentially, she said nobody explained to me that was an option. well, the lawyers that the

ranking member referred her to apparently didn't even tell their own client that she had the opportunity to void this three -- to avoid this three-ring circus and the embarrassment associated with it by doing something confidentially. that's how the judiciary committee ordinarily operates when allegations are made. they are investigated by committee staff or by the f.b.i. under -- actually by both, but that didn't happen here until after this mob rule unleashed what we have seen here in the last few weeks. we know that when dr. ford sent her letter to the ranking member that it wasn't shared with the f.b.i. initially, it wasn't shared with judiciary committee investigators, it wasn't shared with the committee itself in a closed-door session which

followed the open session where judge kavanaugh was asked about other personal matters that came up during the course of the background investigation. the ranking member didn't even attend that closed-door session. nor did anybody mention it to the judge when he went to talk to some 60-plus members of the senate one on one. the ranking member when she had that one-on-one meeting with judge kavanaugh, she said nothing to him about the allegations. she could have asked him about the allegation generally without revealing the identity of dr. ford. we know at that point she had already talked to dr. ford and recommended partisan lawyers. we know that those lawyers arranged for a polygraph examination to be administered. other preparations were being made, plans were