i know our president is proud to hail from the state of louisiana. i am equally proud to hail from the first state. as you may know, mr. president, we are called the first state because we were the first state to ratify the u.s. constitution. the longest living, most emulated constitution in the history of the world. one of the judgment -- fundamental reasons our constitution and our democracy has endured is because of the intricate system of checks and balances that our founding fathers crafted just up the road in philadelphia some 231 years ago. the process we have been through here in the last several weeks unfortunately makes a mockery of that system of checks and balances. i believe we all must recognize that to use the majority leader's words plowing through with judge kavanaugh's nomination will diminish the

credibility of the supreme court as an institution that stays above the political fray. in fact, in confirming judge kavanaugh it calls into question every 5-4 decision moving forward from this time. it also calls into question the legitimacy of us, this very chamber. let me leave my colleagues with this. we'll not only be judged by voters this november, we're going to be judged by history. we say that a lot. sometimes it's overstated. in this case it is not. we're going to be judged by history in this regard. i would implore each of you who are still thinking this through, trying to figure out what is right thing to do. we are -- let's show that we have made progress since 1991 in

a previous supreme court nomination confirmation episode. let's show that we're willing to take a stand and do the right thing. because if we're not, the short-term political winds will be eclipsed by the stains left on our legacies from this body in which there may be no recovery. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield. a senator: i would. mr. inhofe: i ask that i be recognized for as much time as i should consume after the senator from missouri. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit. my good friend talked about

being judged by history. what i want to talk about is the history of this system and others who have served. i read several times in the last 30 days particularly that democrats feel they can do anything because of the way merrick garland was treated. i don't think there's any comparison between the way merrick garland was treated and the way that judge kavanaugh has been treated. the only comparison i can think of is they are both on the d.c. court of appeals and they both said very kind things about each other, but there's no comparison. merrick garland was nominated in the last year of a presidency. the last time someone was put on the supreme court that was nominated in the last year of a presidency was 1932 -- 1932 was the last time that happened. the last time someone went on the supreme court where the president was of one party and the senate was of the other and it was a presidential election

year was 1888. there is no comparison. in fact, joe biden, vice president biden, senator biden said on june 5, 1992, in what turned out to be the last year of the bush presidency, he said if there is a vacancy, there will be no hearing until after the election. there wasn't a vacancy, by the way, they put the historical marker down that if there is a vacancy, there won't be a vote until after the election and that means there won't be a hearing that matters unless the president is reelected and the majority in the senate stays the same, there's no reason to assume that there will be a judge appointed by a president this year. senator schumer said in july of 2007, not wanting to wait until election year, just wanting to

put his position on the table even earlier, senator schumer said in july of 2007, the last year of another bush presidency, he said we should not confirm any bush nominee -- i think he meant from that moment on -- as a matter of fact he said from that moment on -- we shouldn't confirm a bush nominee from that moment on except in extraordinary circumstances. i'm sure he didn't know that one vacancy on the supreme court would be an extraordinary sicker but a -- circumstance, but a circumstance that would be dealt with just like judge garland was about. that sets no precedent anymore than the -- than senator biden or senator schumer set a precedent that should have been a surprise for anybody. so what do we have with judge kavanaugh as he -- we decide in the next few hours, the next day

or so, whether he becomes judge kavanaugh. this is the seventh background check of this judge by the f.b.i. there has never been a more extensive review of a supreme court nominee. seven times in slightly more than a dozen years going through this background check. more than 150 people have been interviewed. he had 106 hours of testimony before the senate where you and others on the judiciary committee could ask him anything you wanted to ask. he had 65 private meetings with senatorrings where they -- senators where they could ask him, including, by the way, the ranking member on the judiciary committee who had this information available to talk about, could ask him anything you wanted to ask. more than 500,000 pages of executive branch documents have been provided. more than the last four

nominees. all of his opinions as a judge, all the cases he was part of, there were about 300 of those, and by the way, that's the best way to look at what kind of judge he would be -- asked over 1,200 questions for the record. that's like after you asked all of the questions you could publicly think of and you've got about a week to answer any questions submitted by the record, he had 1,200 questions submitted for the record that he had to answer in that short of period of time, three confidential calls with the committee and then last friday our colleagues decided, and i think as it turned out maybe wisely so, to do one more final f.b.i. review of whatever they might not have asked about in the other seven f.b.i. interviews that have occurred over the years, and the outside

number was one week. a week ago one week was what was apparently going to be plenty of time. i think some members of -- in the minority said, maybe three or four days, that's what it took for the clarence thomas hearing, and that was before this became public because it was turned over to the f.b.i. like it should have been. in three or four days they talked to everybody they could have talked to. last week, three or four days could have been enough, or a week could have been enough according to the other side. of course that wasn't going to be the case. a week was never going to be enough. by the way, mr. president, in background checks when you're asked to be part of that, one, if your background check, one of the questions you're asked, any drinking problems, any drug problems? and he had been asked that over and over and over and over again, and everybody who is

interviewed is always asked, do you know of any problems like that. usually a question is, have you heard of anything that we would be interested in if we had heard about it? another question often is, would you tell us three people that we might not talk to that we might know something about judge kavanaugh that we should know. a decade and a half, seven f.b.i. interviews, 150 people interviewed, the behavioral question, the drinking question, the drug question, which hasn't come up as far as i know, but it's always asked, has been asked over and over again. and then you and i and senator inhofe went the other morning to hear a review of this last set of interviews where people that were possibly would have been able to corroborate something would interviewed and couldn't robert it. -- corroborate it. the case, in many ways, got

weaker as we moved forward. we heard that. and i heard that afternoon senator schumer said -- this is full of hints of misconduct. so i went back this morning and looked through the six prior background checks, looked through this background check, and as it turns out, i agree with senator grassley who said there is no mishint of misconduct. if there had been a hint of misconduct in the previous five, he would have -- he wouldn't have been nominated. if there was misconduct in the sixth one, he wouldn't have been nominated. that wouldn't have sustained itself. if you look at the pages that are new, that's not there now. you can say whatever you want to say. you could say it's not time enough. you could say even though no witness ever saw any of thee

events, you haven't talked to enough people even though you talked to be everybody mentioned as far as i know of any credible charges and so here we are. so now it's temperament. now it's temperament. i don't think there are many senators who would have -- would not have had his same indignation at being accused of something that he, without equivocation, swore did not happen, not only in those instances, but any other instance. ruth bader ginsburg, when it took 43 days for her to be confirmed, we're at 83 days or something like that now. when i looked up a couple of articles, just to refresh my memory, when she shows some fire, and she had plenty of it, and i admire that, the description of her is -- of her

is her well-known candor, like when she said about the republican nominee last year, he's a fakeer. he has no consistency about him. he should withdraw. what she said when she said i can't imagine what this place would be, i can't imagine what the country would be with donald trump as our president. now is that a temperament issue or is that too snril by -- too political? by the way i'm not offended by political. the court never was either. john marshal, one of the great judges of the court was secretary of state by the person who appointed him. earl warren, who set a standard for the court, had never been in any public office except for political office when he became the chief justice. when he joined the court in 1953, there were three former

senators sitting on the court, there were two former attorneys general sitting on the court, both appointed by the president they had been attorney general for. allanea -- elena kagan was the principal lawyer for president trump. but now temperament is a problem. thorough good marshal, i admired him as a lawyer, the decision that president johnson made was clearly historic, but thorough thorough -- marshall said he wouldn't do the job of dog catcher for ronald reagan. about president bush while he was still a judd, justice marshall said if you can't say something good about a dead person, don't say it. well, i consider him dead.

if you take the first injunction, you don't have anything to say. people on the cower have opinions. there's -- on the court have opinions pt there's nothing -- court. there's nothing wrong with that. you could look at judges and 300 opinions and law school classes he taught. there's plenty to look at, mr. president. and those all, i believe, had to -- head to a couple of conclusions. one, the way this nomination has been treated was outrageous. i think my good friend who talked before said he has never seen anything like it. well, there's never been anything like this. hold on to information that can't be corroborated, only release it after it's clear that the journal has the votes to be confirmed, and you want to do, as the majority leader said, -- the minority leader to slow down

and stop this nomination. we have plenty to look at here. we cannot set a standard of guilty until proven innocent because then anybody can make any charge at any time, and particularly when there's many reasons to believe that there's nothing in seven background checks, there's nothing in 150 interviews, there's nothing in a very visible public career to ever suggest that judge kavanaugh is anything different than he said he was and those of us who will vote for him believe him to be, and i would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: before the senator from missouri leaves, confession is good for the soul, and i want to share something that will

shock him, and that there were a number of things i did in college -- in high school and college that are not displayed on my campaign material. i said it. a lot of people on the phone today are not sure what we did with the vote this morning. we had the vote this morning because we had to move forward in order to consider the final consideration of this great nominee tomorrow. it was filibustered by the democrats. of course, we had to do a cloture vote. i know it's somewhat in the weeds here but that's what we have to do and that vote took place. tomorrow at some time, we will actually have this vote. you know, i start off with saying that i'm just enthusiastically a yes tomorrow. i think that goes without saying. i met with judge kavanaugh in my office back when he was first nominated. in fact, i studied him before. i remembered him when he was

nominated the first time back six years ago. and i talked to him at that time. i thought, well, has he really changed that much? is it necessary? i even said it's really not necessary. i've followed your career and all that. but i came by anyway. the thing that i like, because i'm not a lawyer, the things that he did just show him as a human being, more than just a nominee for a judge on the united states supreme court. the human things that he did. i know for a fact because i talked to her, one of his good friends who died had a wife and two girls like his two girls and went back to school night comes, he takes those two girls with his to back-to-school night. those are the types of things he does. we've heard about the warm things and as a coach he's done. that's the human being i knew. and it wasn't necessary because i was sold on him anyway after

looking at his record. on the eve of kavanaugh's nomination heading toward certain confirmation, we were hit by a bomb. it was an uncorroborated attack that the democrats sat on for two months. that's critical. you have to stop and think about that. why else would they take something that they thought was so important to destroy this fine man and wait for two months, sit on it? you know, i'm surprised that they didn't let it slip just because they wanted to make sure people were talking about it. the details of the allegation were the worst kinds. an aggressive, ugly, sexual attack. you know, sexual assault and violence is wrong, period. it's wrong that so many women who experience sexual assault and harassment do not feel empowered to come forward, even until years later and maybe never. it's also unjust for someone to be accused of a crime that he or she did not commit and be

convicted in the court of public opinion without any evidence or core rob tif accounts. it's hard to wrap your head around that someone who has been in the public eye for decades, respected by his colleagues, his students, his friends, his family, everyone, and never had a whisper of wrongdoing in all those years. all of a sudden he's suddenly accused of such a heinous crime. like many americans, i watched the hearings last thursday in the hope that it would provide more clarity and some answers. i think it did. it would be easy to get wrapped up in the conflicting media coverage and all the spins. instead i looked at what we know to be true. what we know to be true. the people dr. ford places at the scene that night have either denied the events or do not recall any party or gathering that matches her description. now, so there's -- that is an

idle accusation. her long life friend -- in fact, some people characterize her as her best friend, it's one that dr. ford named in her allegation s as the only other girl at that small gathering. so here's a small gathering. she's accusing him of this behavior. and there's one other girl there. and once the -- and she says the other -- the other girl says she does not know brett kavanaugh and has never attended a party where he was there. i mean, it can't be more definite than that and that's from her best friend. when dr. ford testified, testimony as compared to other statements she made to they are pairpist, to -- therapist, to "the washington post," to the ranking member and her statement for the polygraph exam, there are various inconsistencies that should not be ignored. dr. ford's ability to remember key details of the alleged attack, like things like the date, the place, the other

circumstances surrounding the event that places judge kavanaugh in a difficult position to defend himself as democrats in the media unjustly shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. i don't remember that happening before. this is still america. from the beginning, judge kavanaugh has categorically denied the ablg -- accusations and has not wavered or equivocated on this point. he's cooperated with the judiciary committee. that's senator grassley's committee. their investigation every step of the way, including speaking with committee staff under oath several times over the course of the last couple of weeks and providing documentation to help clear his name, he's done it all. everything we've asked of him he's done. on the other hand, dr. ford's attorneys have refused to turn over the key evidence that her testimony relied on to

corroborate her claims. her therapist notes that were shown to "the washington post" but not to the committee, messages she exchanged with a reporter, the documentation, the recordings related to the polygraph test she took in early august, they were refusing to turn over key evidence. so they didn't have any evidence they could turn over. so no wonder there's no witnesses that can corroborate the accusations that's been made against this fine man. now, i'm not going to go into the other allegations. there are two others that came along. the timing of this is kind of interesting. first of all, they withheld this document that dr. ford had for two months. you know, it's hard to keep a secret around this place, and i'm surprised that didn't come out. but they did it for a purpose. what do you think that purpose is? what other purpose could it be other than waiting until the last minute and coming out with something that was never

discussed before, no accusation was made, and so that's what happened. and based on what we know, the totality, to condemn anyone on an offense that has been denied and not proven would be caution to anyone else doing the same thing. john adams, our second president of the united states, he wrote -- listen to this mr. president. this is a quote. he said, but if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say whether i do good or whether i do evil is immaterial for innocence itself is no protection and if such an idea is that we were to take a hold in the mind of a citizen, that would be the end of security whatsoever. that's what he said. let's look at what scriptures say. it's in numbers 35:30.

if anyone kills, the murderers should be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. now think about that. that's a direct violation of what they're trying to do. so you have john adams. you've got the bible. you've got -- and then there's our judicial system. it's reflected in our judicial system as well. quote, innocent until proven guilty, unquote. it's more than just a phrase. it's a cornerstone of the rule of law since before our founding and it's wisdom has been borne out time and time again throughout history. innocent until proven guilty. that's really what's on trial here. innocent until proven guilty. i've never seen this happen before. and i've been around for a long time. cut through the drama and the focus on the facts, that's why i continue to support judge

kavanaugh's confirmation. judge kavanaugh's name has been unjustly run through the mud by these subsequent allegations that even "the new york times" did not deem fit to print or were brought forth by a known publicity seeker with an axe to grind against the president looking for nothing but attention and more fame for himself. i'm dismayed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have taken these uncorroborated, fantastical allegations at face value and run with them. i feel the democrats showed their hand in the days since last week's hearing and the agreement on the supplemental f.b.i. background investigation that was made. the narrative has shifted from allegations of sexual misconduct to ones of judicial temperament, as my friend from missouri pointed out. now, i'm not a lawyer, but everyone knows the saying that if the law is on your side, argue the law.

if the facts are on your side, argue the facts. if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table. and that's what we're hearing right now. and you've got the difference here the democrats are trying to outdo each other and pounding the table. they know the allegations are not proven. they know that judge kavanaugh remains committed to his innocence and the process and they know that the republicans will remain committed to the facts. so they must change tactics. moving the goalpost one more time and attack him on other grounds. the first of these is to question his temperament. because he defended himself, his family, his career, his name so forcefully and passionately, he did not dem straight the calm -- demonstrate the calm, demeanor one should respect from a judge. the problem with this characterization is it ignores the fact that judge kavanaugh was not a disinterested party hearing the arguments of opposing counsel. he was the subject of the

accusations. and it was he that was being attacked and condemned. there's a big difference there. i dare anyone to be calm and dispassionate if they had to sit by for ten days and watch and listen to everyone they worked for and built over a long career and public service being torn down in an instant without any proof, any proof at all. to see your high school yearbook picked apart by conspiracy theorists who seek nefarious meanings behind juvenile jokes and 30-year-old slang. to see your friends and family be threatened and harassed and you can do nothing to stop the angry mob. this idea completely ignores the fact that judge kavanaugh has proven over 12 years that he's been on the bench of the second most powerful court in the country that he does have the temperament we look for in our judges. this fact is supported by

unanimous well qualified a.b.a. rating which is considered to be the gold standard from the democrats. and the countless testimonies by people across the political spectrum that have worked with him and argued a case in front of him and know him well. and the -- in the last few days, the discourse has further evolved into perjury claims based on the judge's drinking habits in high school and college. i'll leave the legal arguments to those more knowledgeable than me that the department who had thoroughly debunked the particular myth but suffice it to say he liked beer, he drank beer, and sometimes he drank too much. you know, he did some things in high school and college maybe he thinks now he shouldn't have done. but that's what he did. he wasn't hiding anything when he came to drinking in his youth. he said that right upfront in

one of the earlier hearings. six background investigations by the f.b.i. over the course of a lengthy public service. decades in the public eye, and never has anyone brought any allegations or concerns to the attention of the investigators or the press in all that time. you know, i was here when he was up for the appellate judgeship. none of this came up at that time. and there is a difference here. i think the other side is -- you know, let's face it. they said -- the democrats said at the very first it doesn't matter who our president nominates to be on the federal bench, we're going to oppose him. so here we are, opposing him. well, with each new breath -- reported account of a party, alleged ice-throwing incident or juvenile jokes, passing gas orcussing from -- or cussing from the early to 1980's, it

becomes clearer and clearer that democrats are not serious and they're concerned between the more serious ale gaitions -- allegations and become more absurd and desperate. the fact they have to focus on judge kavanaugh's school days further reinforces the idea that brett has led an exemplary life as a husband, a father, public servant. i'd like to take a moment to commend my good friend from iowa, the chairman of the judiciary committee. you know, my wife called this morning and she said, be sure that you single out him and set him down and tell him how proud of him. my wife and i have been married for 59 years. and when my wife is proud, i'm proud. so once made aware of the allegations from the democrats for weeks and the staff had the right -- they postponed the committee. this is the chairman we're talking about. postponed the committee vote, gathered statements and other

evidence and offered dr. ford the opportunity to provide her testimony in any way that would be comfortable to her. eventually scheduling a follow-up hearing. all along the way they were treated by our chairman of the committee with the respect that they deserved and should have received and started back when the allegation was first brought to our attention. he and his staff kept us informed of the various investigations almost every step of the process. the chairman has built a well-deserved reputation for protecting whistleblowers. this is one of the things he's been outspoken on for a long time and he's protected them over the course of his career. he's proven them buns again -- once again during the process. i look forward to voting for judge kavanaugh. you know, i would hope that we could put an end to the search and destroy campaign by the

democrats and this media, but i won't hold my breath. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii is recognized. ms. hirono: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that jeffrey hanson, a law fellow, and a law clerk in my office be permitted access to the floor during the remainder of the debate for brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today in opposition to brett kavanaugh to the supreme court of the united states based on an in-depth look at his legal

career and judicial writing, i conclude he has a long pattern of misstating facts and misapplying the law in order to further his partisan political agenda. his partisan ideologically driven agenda is particularly troubling in cases involving women's personal, intimate decisions. roe v. wade allows women to have control over whether and when to bear children. it is more than that as justice o'connor explained. i'm quoting justice o'connor, it is a promise of the constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. the supreme court's jurisprudence on reproductive rights is based on case law going back decades that have

assured americans the right to educate their children as they saw fit, to marry anyone no matter their race and decide whether or not to use contraception inside or outside of marriage. it is part of privacy an autonomy that has become a bedrock of american society to have families and raise children. but brett kavanaugh, through his political choices and affiliations, as well as his legal and judicial writing has told us loud and clear that he does not respect a woman he a right to make her own intimate personal decisions and will do whatever he can once confirmed, if confirmed to narrow and overturn roe v. wade. a recent speech kavanaugh delivered gives us further insight into his own legal views on the topic. in 2017, at the american

enterprise institute, he gave a speech in tribute to the late chief justice william rehnquist. in his remarks kavanaugh praised rehnquist's dissent in roe v. wade where the late chief justice found no constitutional right to abortion because the right was, quote, not rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people. end quote. thank goodness the rest of the supreme court did not follow chief justice. to learn about brett kavanaugh's own legal views on reproductive rights, we need only look at his dissent in last year's d.c. case garza v. hargan. here a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant sought release to obtain an abortion. kavanaugh's first fundamental misstatement was characterizing

it as a quote, unquote, parental consent case. it was not. the young woman received a judicial by pass from a texas judge and therefore did not need parental consent. for a judge applying for a proceedings motion to -- promotion to the score to dismiss the case is astounding me. in my view a first-year law scoont would not have deemed the garza case to be a parent dissent case, but that's what he said. then, when applying the case to determine if a woman's right was due to an -- was an undue burden, he thought nothing of keeping a 17-year-old in the office of resettlement instead of releasing her to get an abortion that was entirely within her right to seek. compare that to the ease with which judge kavanaugh found that

religious employers in the case of priest for life versus department of human health services were burdened by filling out a two-page firm. the employers were seeking it to avoid paying for any employee's health insurance that covered contraception. they say it burdened their free exercise of religion. the majority of the d.c. circuit held that asking the employers to fill out a brief form to let the government know of their objection was not a substantial burden, but judge kavanaugh disagreed and would have ruled to deny the female employees their proper health coverage sighting with the priests for life. judge kavanaugh's colleagues on the d.c. circuit went out of her way to write a concurring opinion to directly rebuke judge kavanaugh's dissent and correct his misstatements of the case. to judge kavanaugh holding a

woman in government custody unnecessarily and against her will does not represent an undue burden to her constitutional right to an abortion, but when it comes to an employer opting out of contraception, a two-page application is too much. he feels -- anyone who feels assured that he will uphold roe v. wade is in a fantasy world. states like texas, iowa, and louisiana are currently making their way to the supreme court and all of the evidence shows that judge kavanaugh will side with them. advocates for women's reproductive rights are against judge kavanaugh's dissent to the supreme court with good reason. another aspect of his judicial record that argues against

confirmation is judge kavanaugh's pattern of dissents. dissents are revealing. it is where judges go out of their way to voice their disagreement with the majority on the court and show what their views are. judge kavanaugh has the highest dissent rate among active d.c. circuit judges at 5.12 dissents -- 5.1% per year. one case show that he consistently sided against immigrants. another study show he consistently sided against the air we breathe and the water we drink. environmental and consumer rights groups are against judge kavanaugh's ascent to the supreme court with good reason, and yet another study analyzed his dissents and found that judge kavanaugh tended to descend among partisan lines

than colleagues and his, quote, divisiveness rampped up during political campaigns before political elections. this is more than coincidence. it found that he had the highest rate of what the study found partisan dissents -- when they were appointed by democratic presidents. again, not the sort of fair-minded consideration of the facts and law necessary for a supreme court justice. his partisanship was clearly on display for all to see at his thursday hearing. for me, as a senator from hawaii, judge kavanaugh's pattern of misstating the facts and misapplying the law is evident in his work on the case rights v.katano. president trump demonstrated through signing statements, budget proposals and proposed regulations that he views programs for our indigenous

communities as unconstitutional classifications. and he found a like-minded supreme court nominee in brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh has a long history of misstating facts and misapplying the law in order to curtail the rights of indigenous people, native hawaiians, alaska natives and american yarns. in 1999 brett kavanaugh supported freddie rice's challenge -- a state office established in hawaii to work for the betterment of native hawaiians. mr. rice sued then-governor of hawaii and the case made its way to the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh coauthored his am cuss brief with other highly conservative legal advocates, including robert border security, a har -- including robert borke.

judge kavanaugh wrote an op-ed for the "wall street journal," are hawaiians indians? in his op-ed judge kavanaugh relied on incorrect facts and misstatements ignoring obvious choices that contradict his position. he relied on these incorrect facts in order to reach his political conclusion that native hawaiians and arguably other indigenous communities who do not fit his limited view of tribal structure are not afforded any special protections by the constitution. he called the voting structure into question under the 14th amendment calling it, quote, naked racial spoil system. end quote. and describing the native hawaiian community, he went out of his way to ignore their history. he cobbled together blatant falsehoods and called into

question their status as an indigenous people. his op-ed argued that native hawaiians were not entitled to the constitution because they don't have their own government, they don't have their own system of laws, they don't have their own elected leaders, they don't live in territorial regions. he said that native groups in the u.s. deride their rights from having been -- and that they surrender their rights when they move outside of these article official boundaries. it is not only factually wrong but deeply offensive. kavanaugh argues that an indigenous community must have its own government, its own system of laws, its own elected leaders and live together on a vagues to be considered indigenous. by that he means that only federally recognized tribes in the lower 48 states are afforded

any protections. after judge kavanaugh made his troubling and misleading arguments in the am cuss brief and he'd, the united states supreme court decided rice v.catano, they ruled that it violated the 15th amendment's voting rights guarantees. the supreme court in rice relied only on the 15th amendment, it did not address the 14th amendment argument that the judge made in his brief which claimed that the office of hawaiian affairs voting structure was an unconstitutional racial voting set aside. but judge kavanaugh and his allies continued to misstate and misconstrue the with holding of rice for their own political purposes. judge kavanaugh continued to misapply the law in rice to argue that native hawaiians could not be the beneficiaries of targeted programs when clearly the case stands for a much narrow proposition having

nothing to do with government benefits. in fact, the supreme court declined to address judge kavanaugh's question of whether the office of hawaiian affairs' voting structure could be an unconstitutional race-based classification under the 14th amendment. in one e-mail when he was in the bush white house, kavanaugh wrote, quote, i think the testimony needs to be clear that any program targeting native hawaiians as a group is subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable validity under the constitution. end quote. in another he wrote, quote, white house counsel objects and raises questions about the constitutionality of this bill, including but not limited to the portions that refer to native hawaiian rice v. cayetano. end quote. at his hearing at the judiciary committee, when i asked him about his misapplication of the law, judge kavanaugh again misstated the holding of rice and refused to correct his misstatement when i asked him to

clarify. he testified before the judiciary committee that rice, quote, was a straightforward violation of the 14th and 15th amendments of the u.s. constitution, end quote. he was wrong. but when i pressed him on this point and asked him to show me where in the majority decision in rice cited the 14th amendment, he reniced -- refused to answer. why? because he was clearly wrong. it is deeply troubling to have a supreme court nominee for a lifetime position who doesn't correctly present the law. and judge kavanaugh's answers on this topic fit his pattern of evading and skirting the truth. his reliance on these stereotypes and bigots troaps -- troaps about native hawaiians and his misrepresentation of the law presents a clear and present danger to native people all over this country including in hawaii. notably in his writings against native hawaiians, judge caf unlawful completely avoided any reference to the alaskan native

claims settlement act. alaskan natives organize themselves not as tribes in judge kavanaugh's understanding of the word but village and regional cooperations that shares individual alaskan natives hold. this is a novel system for facilitating the united states' trust responsibilities and arguably not in keeping with what judge kavanaugh believes deserves constitutional protection. that is why native communities across the country including the office of hawaiian affairs, council for native hawaiian advancement, alaska federation of natives, and the national congress of american indians have come together to express deep concern over judge kavanaugh's nomination. in the context of his views on native peoples, i no longer find it curious that judge kavanaugh devoted so much time back then to writing an amicus brief and

op-ed on a case that involved native hawaiians. mr. president, i will have more to say tomorrow about other aspects of this nomination. in particular, what dr. christine blasey ford's account of her attack by brett kavanaugh reveals about the nominee, the senate, and american culture. for now, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. ms. harris: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the senator from washington and connecticut and also be asked to be notified when we've used 45 minutes of the democrats' time. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. harris: thank you. mr. president, given the serious and troubling allegations

against judge brett kavanaugh, i am deeply disturbed that the senate is moving forward with this nomination. when it was announced that the f.b.i. could investigate these serious and credible allegations, i had hoped that there would be a legitimate investigation. as the former attorney general of california, i have tremendous, tremendous respect for the sworn law enforcement officers at the f.b.i. and this should have been a search for the truth. they should have been allowed to do their full job. but instead the white house did not allow it. this was not a search for the truth. instead, this was about politics and raw power to push through an unfit nominee. i am a former prosecutor. i have led investigations, and i have prosecuted all types of crime, particularly violent crimes, including specialization in sexual assault cases as a

prosecutor. i have tried these cases in a courtroom. i have spent hours, hours with assault victims. and i can tell you that when we look at what happened during the course of these days, these few days in reviewing and giving regard and respect to dr. ford, we have fallen short. we have fallen short. 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police in our country. delayed reporting is normal. mr. president, i will tell you that when i was personally prosecuting sexual assault cases, we would be in a courtroom. i would be there as the prosecutor, the accused, the accused's attorney, a judge, and then a room, a courtroom full of prospective jurors. and we would engage in a process called voyeur di -- voir dire where we would talk with

prospective jurors, fellow citizens, to determine if they would be able to sit as a juror and without bias, listen to the case. and then make a determination about the facts and the law. i cannot tell you the number of times, colleagues, that a prospective juror would raise their hand and ask could they quietly speak with me and the defense attorney and the judge in judge's chambers outside of the courtroom and outside of the sight and the ability for anyone else in the courtroom to hear. and we would go into the judge's chambers. and i cannot tell you the number of people who would sit in a chair and with tears in their eyes tell us that they had been a victim of sexual assault and had never told anyone, not even their spouse, but because of what they had experienced, they knew they could not possibly sit

in a courtroom and hear the testimony that they knew would come related to the charges that they knew the case was about. this is an issue that impacts so many americans, most of whom don't report it and don't tell anyone and usually when they do, it is because something precipitated the telling of their story that was beyond the time during which they endured the assault itself. dr. ford's experience in this regard is no different from the majority of sexual assault victims. and she should be believed. i know what it means to engage in an investigation and a search for the truth, having been a part of investigations to determine what has happened and

in particular if a crime has occurred. let's be clear about one thing. there's been a conflation around here about the subject and need for an investigation into dr. ford's allegations. ours was not a search to determine whether a crime occurred. ours was not a search to determine whether we had enough facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred. no. ours was an investigation to figure out enough about what happened to determine if brett kavanaugh is fit to serve on the highest court in our land. is he fit to be a jurist in the place where we have said justice in our country occurs. in the house where we listen to evidence and truth and make determinations based on the

veracity and the truthfulness of what has occurred. that is our role when it comes to dr. ford's allegations. and we fell short. we fell short. we did not do her justice. we did not do the american people justice. we were given one week to investigate. the republicans said you'll get one week. they throughout one week, an ash rather amount of time. and unless -- and in less than one week, we are presented with paltry documents. there was not clearly when the white house directed the f.b.i. to do its work, it appears from everybody i've seen the f.b.i. was not permitted to look at all the allegations. that's clear to me. it is clear that the white house did not per mift the f.b.i. to

request mark judge's safeway records. it's clear from everything i've seen, the white house did not permit the f.b.i. to investigate the dishonest testimony of brett kavanaugh or to examine and listen to the evidence that would have been provided by a list of over two dozen witnesses that would have been at the very least able to corroborate or deny the allegations that were made. this was not a meaningful investigation into the allegations that are before us. and this most importantly was not a search for the truth. media outlets have reported that there are more than 40 people with potential relevant information who are willing to share their information, but only nine people were interviewed. this is a travesty. they did not enter viewf the georgetown prep -- swer view -- interview the georgetown prep

student. they did not interview dr. ford's husband or a number of her friends who she told of the assault before -- before kavanaugh's nomination. they did not interview the former f.b.i. special agent who conducted dr. ford's polygraph. they did not interview kavanaugh's roommate at yale who has contradicted kavanaugh's testimony. they did not interview another one of kavanaugh's neighbors in the dorm at yale. they did not interview three of kavanaugh's friends from yale who wrote in "the washington post" just last night, quote, brett also belonged to a yale senior secret society called truth and courage. we believe that brett neither tells the former nor embodies the latter. end quote. they did not interview dr. ford at all. they did not interview dr. ford

at all. did not give her the ability to speak her truth during the so-called investigation. and they did not interview judge kavanaugh about these allegations. this was not a search for the truth. this was not an investigation. this was an abdication of responsibility and duty. and this on the heels of a process that began with hiding more than 90% of judge kavanaugh's record. we only received approximately 400,000 pages out of an estimated 6.9 million pages of documents. the republicans have been saying oh, you should be happy you received thousands of pages of documents. because they want us to treat crumbs on the table like it's a feast. these were crumbs on the table compared to the vast amount of information that is available to some about his background. this process has left the american people with more questions than answers.

this has not been a search for the truth. the minimum standard for a supreme court nominee should be someone who we are confident will demonstrate impartiality, integrity, and truthfulness. but the nominee we are voting on has not demonstrated those qualities. every american is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but nobody is entitled to a seat on the united states supreme court. i yield to my colleague, senator murray. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from california for very clearly outlining for all of us to hear why this was not a search for truth. on an issue that affects so many people in this country, the victims of sexual assault who often, as she just described, do not talk about it, do not speak about it, do not ever tell anyone until there is a reason

to, which is what dr. ford did. and while the senator from california is there, you said this was not a search for truth. when it comes to victims of sexual assault, and you have dealt with them time and time again as district attorney and attorney general in the state of california, what message does this send when they see the united states senate -- ms. harris: i have to tell you that my great pain -- and you and i have talked about it, we all have talked about it -- part of the pain of this process is a real concern that sexual assault victims and survivors may take away from this process that their stories won't be heard or believed. part of the pain that i'm taking away from this process is those that have a story to tell or might have been prepared to have the courage to report may

decide, look what happened to dr. ford. it doesn't matter. no one will believe me. and why should i go through that? and so, i have to say this -- and you and i have discussed it; senator blumenthal, we've discussed it together -- part of what we must message, even if our republican colleagues will not, is to all of the women and men out there who have experienced this, we will hear you. we will see you. we will respect you. we will give you dignity. speak your truth. do not be afraid. do not let this system or any aspect of it bully you into silence. it is critical that we talk about this issue. i believe this is an issue right now that is where the issue of domestic violence was about 30 years ago. there was a perception about domestic violence that i hope we have gotten beyond, but there was a perception about domestic

violence, ah, you know, what happens in the king's castle is the king's business. that's private business. that's not our business. but then we evolved as a society and we realized, no, if she's walking around with a black eye or a busted lip, that's everybody's business. she deserves to be safe and we must stand up for her. i believe this is an inflection moment on the issue of sexual assault, and i hope and i pray that this is a moment where everyone will agree, no one should silently suffer. let's talk about this. let's talk about the facts that every 98 seconds in the united states of america someone is sexually assaulted. let's talk about the fact that 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. let's talk about the fact that since dr. ford had the courage to speak out, one of the biggest national organizations that

addresses sexual assault saw a 738% increase in the calls they received from survivors of these cases. mrs. murray: i thank the senator from california t and i so agree. and this is one of my biggest fears about this moment, and let me talk about why that is true. i was just a mom at home in 1991. i was a state senator, but really not interested in what was happening here at all. my interest came because i watched the clarence thomas-hill hearings, and i watched how a woman shared a very difficult story with an all-male panel of the judiciary committee at the time, and she was disbelieved, she was swept aside, she was treated as if her voice wasn't important, and she was not believed. i was so angry as a woman because, like so many women in

this country, i knew of so many people with experiences much like hers who, too, at work at that time had been dismissed, not believed, or frayed to speak up. and i was angry. and i went to a gathering that night and i told some of my friends back in 1991 the night of the hearing, i'm going to have to run for the u.s. senate because i need to be inside that, to speak up for these women. that's what motivated me to run. i was not given one chance of winning that senate race. here i am today, 27 years later. why? is because so many women and men who understood shared that experience and knew that voice needed to be here. that's what brought me here to the united states senate. so let me talk about dr. ford because i listened to her, like everyone else did, and i heard h.r. voice, and it rang -- and i heard her voice and it rang so true to me p i watched her with tears in my eyes because she was honest, she was sincere, she was

persuasive, she was credible, she had no reason to lie -- none p. in fact, i think we should remember, she did not want to come forward initially. she was worried about the attacks that would come. she knew the history, as every one of us do, what happens to those courageous voices when they speak up, the invasion of privacy that they have. she knew what it would mean for her family. she only came forward when judge kavanaugh was on the very short list for the supreme court, before he was ever sent to us. she came forward, she spoke out. but no one called her. and she didn't want to do it publicly. she didn't want to have this become what she was known for in her life. but she did, and if it wasn't for her, we would not be at this point. now, judge kavanaugh was selected and only then was dr. ford able to get her information to the people who would pay attention, and she unsissed that it be kept confidence -- and she insisted that it be kept confidential, to

none of our surprise. she didn't want a spectacle, she didn't want show. why did she do that? she felt it was her civic duty, that we as united states senators who were giving essentially a job interview to a man who want add job on the highest court in the land. she took a polygraph test. she did everything right. she had told people before, she presented her case credibly. now it is extremely disconcerting to me, as someone who watched the clarence thomas-hill hearings, and is sitting here, that i have heard people dismiss her, put her down, all the way up to the president of the united states. what message does that send across the country today to other women who are so bravely now telling their stories so it will not happen to anyone else? what does it say to them?

what does it say to young girls in high school and college today? they're going to get away with it, so be quiet, because it'll only ruin your life, not theirs. what message does it say to young men? i have heard my colleagues say, well, it was high school, it was college. really? is that what we want, young boys in high school today to think that it's okay, don't worry whatever you do in high school does not count? whatever do you in college doesn't count? i do not want my grandson to hear that message. i do not want my granddaughters to hear that message. i want my country to be better than that. dr. ford is a real person. she is not alone. and if any senator here in the united states senate is listening, they will hear voices in their own states from places they knew, from their own relatives, from friends they have not ever known about, bravely come forward because dr. ford did.

this senate, with the action that we are pursuing, could quash those voices forever. now, to my friends out there and to everyone who has a story, do not be silent. that is not how we win this for the future. but know that we do believe you. the senate has changed since then. i was proud of the judiciary committee members on our side because, unlike what i watched the senate in 1991, there were women and men there who were listening, and they are today. but we have to in this senate think about the consequence of this vote to so many people who are listening today and asking, do i say anything or do i let it happen? and i would just urge my colleagues to remember the lesson of 1991 where too many people felt, i can't speak out. we're changing. we're growing. we're speaking out and it's comparative that this senate stand -- and it's so imperative

that this senate stand behind those women. you need to tell your story and you need to have the courage and we'll be behind you. but i would say to the senators who are joining me today, both who have been involved in these cases, that i am concerned that this message could be the wrong one for young men and women who are coming behind us, and we have to stand up for them. and i would yield to the no of the from connecticut. -- and i would yield to the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i'm really honored to join these two eloquent colleagues who have been a champion, each of them, for this cause and, as women speaking about the problem of sexual assault in our country, the epidemic of sexual assault that continues to be a scourge across our country, and most of my career in law enforcement, like my distinguished colleague from california, has been

involved in making laws work for people and deterring exactly this kind of heinous law-breaking. it is criminal. it is a crime. but it is one of the least reported crimes because of the public shaming and character assassination and mocking and ridiculing that we've seen from men in power over just the last few days and weeks. so i want to say, as a man, speaking on the senate floor and greatly honored to do so, to other men in this country, those men in power who have mocked and ridiculed dr. blasey ford companies be our role -- cannot be our role model. those men in power -- they may be colleagues, they may be the president of the united states,

who have belittled and demeaned and dismissed dr. blasey ford and deborah ramirez and survivors across the country, they do not speak for us. i believe dr. blasey ford. i believe dr. blasey ford because she was credible and powerful as a witness before us. in what she remembered and what she so candidly said she couldn't remember. i believe deborah ramirez. i believe all of you who have written my office or called us, as you have done many of you in other states to my colleagues, who have recounted the horrors of your personal experience with sexual assault, who have come to me as i've been in airports or rallies or other public meetings

and shared with me your horrific stories. i believe you. america believes you. and let me say to dr. blasey ford's sons, you should be proud of your mom. you should be proud of your mom because she is a profile in courage. and to mr. ford, you should be proud of your wife. and to all the men in america, we need to believe survivors of sexual assault. we need to protect and respect them, not just in word but in deed, so that they will come forward and tell us their stories and so that we can

concur this scourge. we should be proud of the brave women who have brought us truth that cannot be denied, no matter how much character s.a.s. nation and public -- character assassination and public shaming they have endured. we know their truth. and this issue of how america moves forward on sexual assault is bigger than this nomination. it will last beyond the vote tomorrow. it will be a defining question for each of us as men, as human beings. now, judge kavanaugh, in facing these allegations, has also revealed something profoundly

significant about himself. when he came to the committee after dr. blasey ford, he revealed his true character. he pulled back the mask on the judge and revealed the man. and what we saw was someone filled with rage and spite, self-pitying and arrogant, deeply partisan and threatening. we can disagree on judge kavanaugh's views on jurisprudential issues and policy and law. we can disagree on issues relating to his out-of-the

mainstream, far-right ideological position. but what cannot be denied is that picture of judge kavanaugh before our committee, which indicated profoundly a lack of temperament and trustworthiness. that picture led former justice john paul stevens to revoke his endorsement and to say his performance was disqualifying. and what we saw, as they say, a picture's worth a thousand words, was a man who refused to answer questions. he snapped at my colleagues. he spouted partisan conspiracy theories. that's the real brett kavanaugh. the brett kavanaugh who characterized dr. ford's serious and credible allegations as

nothing more than, quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit. he in effect depicted her as a puppet or a pawn of senators or political figures, not people who came forward voluntarily in their own right and on their own initiative, as truly they did. he was the brett kavanaugh who alleged that it was all, quote, revenge on behalf of the clintons. he's the brett kavanaugh who, as the "portland press herald" characterized it, quote, ripped off the partisan mask, end quote, and never looked back. and he's the brett kavanaugh who threatened us saying, quote, what goes around comes around.

in brett kavanaugh's own words, a judge must be someone who is, quote, evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, yet courteous and firm and dedicated to a process, not a result. end quote. his own words. that is not brett kavanaugh the man. it will not be brett kavanaugh, the justice, if he is confirmed. brett kavanaugh revealed himself to be a partisan and angry and bitter partisan, not an impartial jurist. and he did so in prepared remarks, planned and premeditated, well calculated, written word for word and delivered word for word as he angrily turned the pages, and

that is the message that for me resonates. because i've argued case in the supreme court. i've spent a career standing before judges. some of their rulings i liked. some of them i disliked. some of their conclusions i thought were maybe incorrect. but i knew that those men and women wanted to be impartial. when they put those robes on as brett kavanaugh has done, they left party and partisan interests at the door. and now when i go to the united states supreme court, if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, there can be no trust or confidence that he will be that impartial jurist. it is and will be a stain, a

cloud on the united states supreme court. and all the supreme court has in the way of power is the trust and credibility and confidence of the american people, which will be diminished forever. so let me pose a question to my colleague from california, because she so well described the voir dire process. it's jury selection, where we make an effort to pick jurors who are impartial and nonpartisan. if brett kavanaugh came to a courtroom, senator harris, where you were trying a case as attorney general, and he were in the panel, in the jury pool to be picked for a jury, would you pick him as a juror?

and after that appearance before our committee, would you allow him to sit on a case where you were litigating? ms. harris: senator blumenthal, my response would be no. my response is no, and i'll tell you why. because one of the most important qualities of a juror in our system of justice is that they have the ability to receive information without bias, without any interest in the outcome. and judge kavanaugh has made it very clear to the american public that he is biased, that he is perceiving information and perceives it through the lens of a partisan and through the lens of the person he has been his entire career, which is a partisan operative. and there were moments perhaps during his initial testimony where he may have distracted us from that part of his history,

where he talked, you know, in a calm voice about certain things. he certainly knows case law and talked about it. but when the issues got hot, when it became about fundamental issues, the veneer was stripped away, and brett kavanaugh showed us who he really is. and on the point of temperament, i think it's important for a number of reasons that the american people really review his testimony during those hearings these last days of this process, because what he showed us also is two things with the way that he responded to our colleagues and approached the issue. one, he showed us that he lacks credibility. and i'll tell you why i say that. because when i was trying cases also, i recall an instruction the jury would receive at the close of the case. and the judge would give the jury instructions about how they could evaluate. it was a tool to help them evaluate the credibility of a

witness. and one of the instructions was it is relevant and significant for you to analyze the demeanor of this witness toward the proceedings. so on this point, let's recall dr. ford's demeanor and judge kavanaugh's demeanor. dr. ford went out of her way to be helpful and truthful. she corrected herself when she thought there was more to offer. she yielded with the committee like a break? if so, i'll take one. if not, i can keep going. by contrast, judge kavanaugh was arrogant, he was aggressive, he was accusatory, and clearly was not in control of himself. but i have to believe he was in control of his words because as you point out, he told us he wrote his speech the night

before. he said i just wrote these. some people, we often advise people when you're feeling hot about something, write it all out and then sleep on it. then look at those words the next day and see if you really want to stand by them. this is a judge who's meticulous, he says, in everything he does. i believe him that he wrote those words the night before. i'm sure he leapt on it. -- slept on it, i'm sure he looked at those notes again and decided that's what he was going with because it wasn't just about the heat of that moment. these are the things he really believes. that's why he said it. so let's believe him at his word. he's a partisan, and for that reason, i answer your question by saying no, i would not select him to be on a jury. mr. blumenthal: and i think this issue of temperament -- and i'm going to pose a question to my colleague from washington. this issue of temperament is so fundamental to our system of justice in this country,

courtrooms are sometimes really emotional places, and sometimes they are angry places. and the function of the judge is to remove the emotion and the anger, to be impartial and balanced and even keeled. so for a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals to engage in this kind of angry outburst, it was not spontaneous. it was not the result of some accusation in the moment. it was calculated. it was premeditated. it was written the day before. it was inexcusable and unacceptable. and i will ask my colleague from the state of washington, since

she's not a lawyer -- perhaps to her credit -- if you were appearing in the courtroom with judge kavanaugh, wouldn't you ask that he step away from the case, that he recuse himself in light of what he has said about all democrats, about vast classes of people, this anger that he has expressed? mrs. murray: i would like to thank the senator from connecticut. no, i'm not a lawyer. i was a preschoolteacher. and one of the things i do know is that i wanted my students to know it's not okay to bully and that you have to take a pause and do what's right. but certainly what i would want for every one of the kids i've ever taught in preschool is to know that if anything they deeply care about an issue or they themselves ever appear in a court, that they would feel in

the united states of america they would be given a fair shot. and win or lose, the judge presiding over them would leave them with that feeling at the end of the day. and that to me is why temperament is so important. if americans lose that sense that no matter who they are or what their issue is or where they come from or how much money they make, in our court of law, they stand a chance to be heard even if they lose or if they win. and that's why temperament is so important to me as just a nonlawyer and someone who cares deeply about this country. mr. blumenthal: i yield back to my colleague from california, but let me just close my part of this colloquy by saying that we saw the real brett kavanaugh before us on that data moment,

and -- day at that moment, and i think that my colleagues, if they review that picture, a picture's worth a thousand words. if they apply common sense, we should not leave common sense at the door. if they put themselves in the shoes of someone appearing seeking justice, they will vote against brett kavanaugh and the disrespect that he showed that brave survivor, dr. blasey ford. i yield back to my colleague from california. ms. harris: i thank my colleagues from washington and from connecticut. i agree we could find a better nominee, and i yield to the senator from the great state of virginia. mr. kaine: i began to read all i could go the judge's record, judicial opinions, law review articles, speeches and i reviewed such as they were made

available documents from his time working with the bush administration and his work with special prosecutor ken starr. following the review, i met with him to ask him serious questions about his record. i then watched his judiciary hearing with interest. after that hearing based on all i had seen and read i announced my opposition to his nomination for two reasons. first, the nation needs a justice with the backbone to stand up as an independent check against both the president and congress. and that's why our nation gives judges life tenure, so they can render independent rulings without fear of losing their jobs. in a whole series of writings, speeches and rulings over the course of many years both as a lawyer and as a judge, judge kavanaugh embraced an unusual deference to executive power. i think this is one of the reasons that the president nominated him, and i don't have confident that judge kavanaugh will hold the president accountable to the law. second, judge kavanaugh's writings as a bush administration lawyer, at least those the majority has allowed us to see, demonstrate his

personal view that settled law is only settled until five justices decide to do something different. this is true as a matter of reelpolitik, but i'm left with serious questions about what other areas of settled law might be unsettled should he ascend to the court. i can understand how colleagues might reach two different opinions on the issues. but since i announced my position two differences have arisen. the first is how the senate will respond to the real and pervasive problem of sexual assault. the second issue is how blatantly partisan we would want the supreme court to be. christine blasey ford has come forward alleging that judge kavanaugh sexual assaulted her in high school and deborah ramirez has come forward to allege that he sexually humiliated her at a party during his time at yale. mr. president, the two allegations by two people who do not know each other about

instances that happened at different times at different places have striking similarities. both ford and ramirez allege that judge kavanaugh under the influence of alcohol and in the presence of other people assaulted or sexually humiliated while others stood by laughing. laughing. in both allegations, the sexual abuse of a woman was treated as some form of entertainment for other persons. people who suffer from suit or harassment are watching to see how the senate responds to these serious charges. and when do they see? a hearing where dr. ford described her experience calmly and carefully while judge kavanaugh attacked her claims as well as those of ms. ramirez as nothing more than a partisan, political conspiracy. a narrowly limited five-day investigation by the f.b.i., who under orders from the white house conducted a -- contacted a handful of witnesses while

dozens of witnesses proffered by dr. ford and ms. ramirez were ignored. a single copy of the f.b.i. notes made available for the senators to read provided that its meager contents not be shared with the press or public. even that minimal investigation raises serious concerns about these claims and judge kavanaugh's general truthfulness. but by moving forward to a vote anyway, the unmistakable message to survivors is the senate does not take allegations of sexual assault seriously. more than 150 survivors of sexual abuse in virginia have reached out to me and asked that the senate show we care about survivors. some are women i've known for decades who have never shared their stories with me. a woman from alexandria wrote, as a sexual assault victim at age 17, i with aens to thank

dr. ford for her testimony. i have never told anyone of the sexual attack, and i am 68 years old. a woman from sterling, i want my future daughters to grow up in a country where sexual assault and abuse is taken seriously by every official and legal professional in the united states. a man from chesapeake, as a male sexual assault victim, i understand how difficult it is to come forward. i strongly and respectfully urge you to attempt to sympathize with those of us who have been abused. a survivor from radford, expressing dissatisfaction with the minimal investigation, if makes me you feel like if my attacker were nominated for the supreme court, i wouldn't be taken seriously either. a woman from williamsburg, dr. ford has agreed to full investigation snooze her experiences but our leaders are failing her and every american citizen. i watched this unfold with anticipation hoping that my representatives will listen to us. an immigrant from henrico, when

my family e-mail greated, my sponsor mother was wonderful but did not know that her husband repeatedly molested and raped me. it started at the age of five until i was returned to my family at age nine. what are these survivors asking? first that a real investigation into the charges be conducted, that the dozens of witnesses proffered not be ignored. finally, that the senate not confirm to the supreme court a person with a question mark by his name to. confirm judge kavanaugh under these circumstances would send a powerful message that the senate and now possibly the supreme court is a hostile environment. -- for survivors of sexual assault. the second issue raised by these allegations is how partisan we want the court to be. a person accused of any offense, especially sexual assault, is entitled to defend himself.

and it would be natural to be emotional and even angry in such a defense if one felt falsely accused. but judge kavanaugh went far beyond that. he claimed that the allegations of dr. ford and ms. ramirez were part of a political conspiracy connected to the democratic party, out activists and the clintons. the performance was insulting and the conspiracy charge was a complete fabrication. there is no evidence to suggest that politics created dr. ford's account of being attacked at a party, her history of seeking counseling years before the nomination, the notes from her therapist, her willingness to take a polygraph, the results of that polygraph, the extensive corroboration of her story of alcohol-fueled house parties in the d.c. suburbs in 1982 ored admitted exploits of the alleged assailant,mark judge.

indeed, if the f.b.i. had been willing to interview witnesses who are now speaking publicly, there is ample evidence corroborating ms. ramirez's account. so a nominee who in the past advocated slash-and-burn tactics as part of the starr investigation, reveals that he attempts to shrug off serious claims of sexual assault as a conspiracy connected to outside left-wing groups, he reveals a temperament that would be very dangerous if added to the supreme court. that is why retired justice john paul stevens has now come out as urge ago no vote. there is a solution to this. there is a solution. we need not settle for a nominee burdened by questions regarding sexual assault allegations or excessive partisanship. there are numerous jurists who could meet the standards of a

republican president and a republican senate majority who do not have these issues. why approve a nominee whose approval would send a hostile message to sexual assault survivors? why approve a nominee whose nomination and arizona approval would send a message. we can find a nominee who will not cause sexual assault survivors litigants or lawyers to fear how they will be treated by the nation's highest court. for the good of the senate and for the good of the court, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the kavanaugh nomination and i ask the president to send up a nominee who will not hurt the reputation of either institution. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from for maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the sergeant will restore order in the gallery. 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 senator for maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the five previous times that i've come to the floor to explain my vote on the

nomination of a justice to the united states supreme court, i have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. but today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion. the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's

name on its pre-written press release. they simply wrote that they opposed donald trump's nomination of "xx" to the supreme court of the united states. a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known. since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. over-the-top rhetoric and

distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. our supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. one can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the constitution's

advice and consent duty means. informed by alexander hamilton's federalist 76, i have interpreted this to mean that the president has broad discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy, whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. i have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but i fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come

before them. i've never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating supreme court nominations. as a result, i voted in favor of justices roberts and alito, who were nominated by president bush. justices sotomayor and kagan, who were nominated by president obama. and justice gorsuch, who was nominated by president trump. so i began my evaluation of judge kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles.

19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. i met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. i spoke with people who knew him personally, such as condoleezza rice and many others. and i talked with judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents,

regarding judge kavanaugh. one concern that i frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care act's vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. i disagree with this the contention. in a dissent in seven-sky v. holder, judge kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the a.c.a. on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. many experts have said that his dissent informed justice roberts' opinion upholding the a.c.a. at the supreme court. furthermore, judge kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow. when a part of a statute is

challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. this was his approach in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued for, quote, severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact. end quote. given the current challenges to the a.c.a., proponents, including myself, of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach. another assertion that i have

heard often that judge kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. the basis for this argument seems to be twofold. first, judge kavanaugh has written that he believes that congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. mr. president, i believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. the fact that judge kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that the, he believes that the president does not have such protection currently. second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation,

president trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. that argument ignores our recent history. president clinton in 1993 nominated justice ginsburg after the whitewater investigation was already underway, and she was confirmed 96-3. the next year, just three months after independent counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. he was confirmed 87-9. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states vs. nixon, three

nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury vs. madison, youngstown steel vs. sawyer and the united states vs. nixon are three of the greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress served as a check on presidential power. and i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown vs. the board of education. one kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the

check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in hamdam vs. the united states, a case that challenges the bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of osama bin laden. this conviction was very important to the bush administration, but judge kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the d.c. circuit by president bush and had worked in president bush's white house, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. as he explained during the hearing, quote, we don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. we base decisions on the law, end quote. others i've met with have

expressed concerns that justice kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry. yet, judge kavanaugh described the obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. he also cited justice kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court's majority stating that, quote, the days of treating gay and lesbian americans, or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the supreme court. end quote. others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. in one case judge kavanaugh

incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. although his critics frequently overlook this point, judge kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. in fact, he wrote that the supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control. therehas also been considerables on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that judge

kavanaugh would seek to overturn roe v. wade. protecting this right is important to me. to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in article 3 of our constitution itself. he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. in other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration. it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. the judge further explained that

precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. there are of course rare and extraordinary times where the supreme court would rightly overturn a precedent. the most famous example was when the supreme court in brown vs. the board of education overruled plessy vs. ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision to use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality. but someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law.

those are judge kavanaugh's phrases. as the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution give the concept of stare dpee dpee -- stare decisis greater wait simply because a judge might want to on a whim. in short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. noting that roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood vs. casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether

the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold vs. connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920's, meyer and pierce that are not seriously

challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood vs. casey, describing it as precedent unprecedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite then-candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time presidents -- republican presidents have

appointed justices o'connor, souter and kennedy to the supreme court. these are the very three justices republican president appointed justices who authored the casey decision which reaffirmed roe. furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justice's nominations. incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan "stop souter or women will die." just two years later justice souter coauthored the casey opinion reaffirming a woman's right to choose. suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong. these same interest groups have

speculated that judge kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence. i asked the judge point-blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the white house, to the federalist society, to any outside group on how he would decide cases. he unequivocally assured me that he had not. judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. the american bar association gave him its highest possible rating. its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an

extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. the a.b.a. concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional competence met the highest standards. lisa blatt, who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other woman in history, testified, quote, by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair. ms. blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of justice ginsburg and who is, in her own words, an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that judg