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 judge kavanaugh fits

within the mainstream of legal thought. she also observed that judge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and chief judge merrick garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases that they heard together. indeed, chief judge garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions authored by judge kavanaugh, dissenting only once. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's record and listening record and listening to 32 hours

of his testimony, the senate's advice and consent was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine blasey ford the confirmation process now involved a eevaluating whether or not judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, the public interest requires that -- bee resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of

innocence.re in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. mr. president, i understand both viewpoints. eb this debate is complicatedrt further by the fact that the senate confirmation process is not a trial. but certain fundamentally legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and i cannot abandon them. in evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill served in the long republic if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting though it may be. we must

always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. the presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominees otherwise exemplary record. i worry that departing from this presumption could a lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward. some of the allegations levied against judge kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. i am thinking in particular not at the

allegations raised by professor ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager judge kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape. this outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. that's such an allegation can find its way into the supreme court confirmation process is a stark reminder abouthy why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in oua american consciousness. mr. president, i listen careful to christine blasey ford's

testimony before the judiciary committee. i found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. i believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. never the less, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. none of the individuals professor ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. judge kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of

perjury. mark judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. pj smith, another person allegedly at the party denied that he was there under penalty of felony. professor ford's lifelong friend, leland kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. and ms. kaiser went further. she indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know brett kavanaugh. in addition to the lack of crobting evidence we also learn facts that have raised more questions for instance, since these allegations have become public,

professor ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say i was at the party that night. further more the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride. yet, not a single person has come forward to say that they were the ones who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. and professor ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly, and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left. is she okay?

not even her closest friend ms. kaiser. mr. president, the constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. at least that decision up to each senator. this is not a criminal trial, and i do not believe that the claim such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, nevertheless fairness

of this terrible problem.

i have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless judge kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. the me too movement is real. it matters. it is needed. and it is long overdue. we know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. on average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go

unreported every year. we must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. we owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come. since the hearing, i have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. some were friends that i had known for decades. yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, i had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks.

i am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward and i hope that in heightening public awareness they have also lightened burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. to them i pledge to do all that i can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. over the past few weeks, i have been emphatic that the senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. i called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both professor ford and judge kavanaugh. i also pushed for and supported

the f.b.i.'s supplemental background check investigation. this was the right thing to do. christine ford never sought the spotlight. she indicated that she was terrified to appear before the senate judiciary committee, and she has shunned attention since then. she seemed completely unaware of chairman grassley's offer to allow her to testify confidentially in california. watching her, mr. president, i could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.

professor ford testified that a very limited of number people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. she testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released, and yet here we are. we are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially. now, one theory i've heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague senator feinstein leaked professor ford's letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. i want to state this very clearly. i know senator dianne feinstein extremely well, and i believe that she would never do that.

i knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. she is a person of integrity and i stand by her. i have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated professor ford unfairly. nothing could be further from the truth. chairman grassley along with his excellent staff treated professor ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. and that is the way the senator from iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service. but the fact remains, mr. president, someone leaked this letter against professor ford's expressed wishes.

i suspect regrettably that we will never know for certain who did it. to that leaker who i hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. you have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but who also trusted you to protect her, and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. my only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the senate and indeed all americans to reconsider how

we evaluate supreme court nominees. if that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded professor ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences. mr. president, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. we live in a time of such great disunity as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. it is not merely a case of

differing groups having different opinions. it is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. in our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as americans. when some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. this would have alarmed the drafters of our constitution who were acutely aware that different values and interests

could prevent americans from becoming and remaining a single people. indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. it is particularly worrisome that the supreme court, the institution that most americans see as the principle guardian of our shared constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political

lens. mr. president, we've heard a lot of charges and countercharges about judge kavanaugh, but as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that brett kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the supreme court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court

is restored. mr. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, it is sometimes said that today's senate does not measure up to senates of previous years because we have no eloquent senators who make compelling speeches. i think senator collins has just disproved that today. whether one agrees with her or not, she was eloquent. her speech was compelling.

and she has presented her case in the tradition of another senator from maine who was serving here when i first came many years ago as a young senate aide, senator margaret smith. it's that due diligence and independence that is so valuable and so important, especially in times of stress like this. i had thought of following senator collins with some remarks of my own about what i found when i read the background checks today. i went to the section where we read classified documents. i saw that 150 people had been interviewed over 25 years about judge kavanaugh, that they had been specifically asked the question whether they saw any evidence of alcohol abuse and every single one said no, there

was no evidence of sexual impropriety. i want to thank senator collins for her insistence on an extra week so that we could have a seventh f.b.i. investigation. i took the time to review that as well. and i saw that no matter how credible dr. ford seemed and she did seem credible to me, that no one except dr. ford remembers that alleged incident and the other four, as senator collins said who dr. ford said were there either don't remember it or said it didn't happen. but i think the more important take away from what the senator from maine has said is that we've reached what she said she hopes is the rock bottom in the senate confirmation process. this is not the way things should be.

whether you're a democrat or a republican, we know that the most awful allegations, sexual assault is certainly as awful as any, deserve a modicum. there's a standard of fairness. she used more likely than not in her case. but in the united states senate, we should be able to deal with such issues in a much better way than we've dealt with this. we have victimized dr. ford, and we have victimized we, all of us, the process, the confirmation process, we have victimized judge kavanaugh who until two weeks ago had a reputation among most people who had ever heard of him as one of the leading scholars, judges, teachers in america. i believe that he is that which is why i'm voting for him. i'm glad to vote for him. but i hope we all pause for a moment and listen to what

senator collins had to say. and i'll conclude where i started. there may have been a time when there were more eloquent senators who made more compelling speeches, down the hall in the old senate chamber. we know their great names. but her speech today stacks up with the best of them. i've heard speeches in this body for nearly a half century, both as a young aide and as a member of the united states senate. and i will remember this one not just because i happen to agree with her but because she showed characteristic diligence, independence, and fairness and a suggestion of the lessons that we should have for the future of this unique institution and this unique country that we prize so much. so i'm going to think about what she has said and i hope other members of the body do. and i hope many americans do as

well. thank you. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: in listening to the senator from tennessee, i'm reminded that he and i were here in those days as young staffers. i was working for a senator from kentucky when margaret chase smith was still here. she had already made her reputation by being the first member of the united states senate to take on joseph mccarthy and the tactics. and it took the senate a couple of years to finally develop the courage to stand up to this demagogue and the tactics that he employed. so those of us who have been in the chamber today had a unique opportunity to listen to a great statesman from maine once again

talk about this institution, how it ought to treat matters like this, and that she's given us the opportunity to think about how we can rise above the depths to which we've sunk during this process. i want to thank the senator from maine. i've not heard a better speech in my time here and i've been here a while. it was absolutely inspirational. the presiding officer: the senator for south carolina. a senator: this is as close to mccarthyism as you get in my lifetime. you're guilty. if one allegations is not enough, how about five. gram to the people who have come -- mr. graham: to the people who have come forward, we'll do whatever we have to do to you to

get the outcome we want. there's two ways of doing this. senator collins' way or what we've seen in the committee. if you want to go down the road to the committee, god help those who will follow. the biggest winner today is those who still want to be judges. you may have saved those who want to come after judge kavanaugh from humiliation to the enth degree because you rejected it today. for every would him that comes forward with sexual assault, god only knows how many don't say a word. but to right one wrong, seldom does it help to create another. senator collins explained the dilemma that we face as a society and rejected the idea sacrificing judge kavanaugh's great name would make anything

better. to the extent that individuals matter in america, you rose to the occasion. to the extent you rejected the mob rule, you have to have some way of judging. yes, we want people to come forward. they deserve to be heard but there needs to be a process for the good of us all to make sure it's disposed of right. if this is enough to be accused, something happened 36 years ago and nobody can corroborate it, god help us all in any line of public service. so all i can say is that it's not about you. i never admired you more and we often agree and sometimes we don't. it's about the systems that you stood by today that have stood the test of time.

i don't know what kind of pressure it's been for you. i can only imagine because you're in a purple state. i remember what sotomayor and kagan was for me. not very comfortable but i tried to embrace the system that stood the test of time. whatever happened to me has been a hundred times worse for you. senator flake, thank you. without sues susan -- without susan collins and jeff flake, we maybe never would have her from dr. ford. so you did a good thing, and the one thing you wouldn't do is to be intimidated. the one thing you wouldn't do is destroy judge kavanaugh's life for no good reason. the one thing you wouldn't do is play politics with the law. god bless you. i doubt if i'll ever hear

anybody more courageous in my political life. so when they write the history of our times, you will be in it. and if john mccain were here, he would be your greatest cheerleader. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i wish my colleagues were here to share in this dialogue because there is such an absence of all the members sharing with each other their perspectives. and we have a world that is enhanced by a media world that lives in different universes that accentuates the differences between the parties. i think we are on a course that does deepen the differences across america, and i hope some way we can find in this senate be able to communicate across that growing chasm in a more effective manner. i've heard many of my colleagues speak to the issue of fairness

on this floor, and i offer just a brief couple sentence point for you to consider why not all of america shares the perspective that this has been fair. when dr. ford was invited to come to speak to the committee, she said she'd like to come but she wanted some time and she'd like to have corroborating individuals be able to appear before the committee. that was denied by the committee, and that bored many -- bothered many people in this chamber a great deal. in 1991 anita hill was given that opportunity. and it was very bothering to individuals that the -- dr. ford put forward a list of eight individuals that she asked the f.b.i. to talk to to be corroborating witnesses, and the f.b.i. could only talk to those within the scoping document that comes from the white house.

because at that moment they are not doing a criminal investigation, they are doing a background check investigation, and they have to follow the president's instructions. and those instructions, we are told, were not to talk to any of the corroborating witnesses, not those eight that she put forward and not the 20 that were put forward by debbie ramirez. so 28 individuals not brought before the committee and not talked to by the f.b.i. i hope we have lots of opportunity to share our perspectives across the aisle to understand this as we struggle with the issue of fairness because for many of us fairness has not been achieved and the bigger message is to these two women who came forward to share their journeys, to share their experiences is that the u.s. senate was unwilling to hear them out, unfortunately. thank you.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i'm rising today at a very important time for our country because who sits on the supreme court matters. it really matters. from health care to civil rights to the safety of the air we breathe and the water we drink to the ability to be able to

raise our families and pursue the american dream, to the very health of our democracy, decisions made by the supreme court affect us every single day. as you know, i was born in michigan. i lived in michigan my whole life. my whole family is still in michigan, and i'm so grateful for that. every decision i make in the united states senate puts the people of michigan first. my decision to oppose judge brett kavanaugh is no exception. the allegations that have been made against judge kavanaugh deserve to be taken extremely seriously. and even before the allegations came to light, judge kavanaugh's record and his writings too often have gone against what is best for michigan families. when confronted with cases that have special interests on one side and people on the other

side, he has consistently sided with the special interests. that's certainly true when it comes to health care. health care isn't political. it's personal for every single one of us. michigan families know what they need -- quality affordable health care, including prescription drugs. and michigan women deserve to make their own reproductive health decisions. right now a court case is pending in which the trump administration is refusing to defend the law that protects people with preexisting conditions. people like amy, a small business owner with chronic leukemia, and luisa, a beautiful little girl born with half a heart. half of michigan families include someone with a

preexisting condition, like high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, cancer. they deserve to know that health care will be there when they need it. yet, if this case were to come before the united states supreme court and judge kavanaugh were a member, i believe many families in michigan would find themselves with no coverage and no care. we need judges who will make decisions based on what's best for people, not drug companies, not insurance companies, but for people. a second issue on the minds of our families is our water in the great lakes. just like the people of flint who still struggle with lead in their water. and ask the people in at least 15 michigan communities whose water is contaminated with what

we now call pfas chemicals. that's industrial chemicals that has been linked to cancer and other diseases. again and again judge kavanaugh has ruled on behalf of polluters, not people. in one case he argued that the environmental protection agency exceeded its authority by trying to address pollution from one state that drifted into another state as if somehow the air was going to stop at the border. thankfully, the supreme court voted 6--2 to -- 6-2 to overturn his decision. what would happen to our air and water if he were one of our people deciding this, particularly if he were to be the tie vote? third, i am deeply concerned by

his belief in essentially unlimited presidential power. in 2016 when asked what single case he would like to see overturned, judge kavanaugh said he would like to, quote, put the final nail, unquote, in a three-decade old supreme court decision that said independent counsels investigating the president are constitution. judge kavanaugh has also written that if a president doesn't like a law, he can simply decide it's unconstitutional. he can simply refuse to enforce it. now, that might be how things work in russia and north korea and syria. it's not how things are supposed to work in america under our democracy with three separate branches of government. we need judges who will ensure

that no one -- no one, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. also, judge kavanaugh's views on what we now call dark money in our elections also concerns me greatly. in one 2011 case judge kavanaugh ruled that foreign nationals could not campaign for or contribute money to candidates. sounds good. unfortunately, he then went on to say that foreign nationals can take part in issue advocacy, giving money for issue advocacy in american elections. in other words russians can contribute as much as they want to an issue group which they can then spend on behalf of candidates. in this way judge kavanaugh opened the door for unlimited dar -- dark money from foreign

nationals, foreign entities in our american elections. do we imagine he'd rule any differently from a seat on the united states supreme court? and, finally, there are the very serious allegations made against judge kavanaugh and serious questions about how he has responded to them. in this country we have due process. we want accusers to be heard and the accused to be able to defend themselves. that's why it's so important we heard from both judge kavanaugh and dr. christine blasey ford. i found dr. ford to be highly credible. her testimony was heart wrenching, and i believe

dr. ford. her story resonated with so many women because many of us have felt that same fear in her, that same laughter that she described. it takes an incredible amount of courage to speak up, and i know that women across the country are grateful to dr. ford for doing so, and i am grateful for the countless women who have called or written me with their stories of what has happened to them oftentimes decades ago. i hope we're going to come to a point when all of this is over and use this as an opportunity to make sure that when something happens women feel that they can report it immediately and will be taken seriously. and that we will have a due process system that works immediately to address these issues. i reviewed the f.b.i. background

check file on judge kavanaugh. unfortunately, i was very disappointed in the very limited scope. it did nothing to alleviate my concerns about the allegations, his truth fullness before the senate judiciary committee, or his suit ability to sit on -- suitability to sit on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh's demeanor during the hearing was a shocking display of entitlement. no one is promised a supreme court seat or entitled. it's a job interview. there are many people qualified to hold that kind of a position. but his sense of entitlement and condensation towards members of the senate committee who were simply doing their jobs was

shocking to me. again, no one is owed a seat on the united states supreme court. we're talking about a lifetime appointment and an immense amount of power over people's lives. someone once said this. the supreme court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. the justices on the supreme court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. they do not caucus in separate rooms. that person was brett kavanaugh. he clearly has failed to meet his own standard. i know he has failed to meet mine. the people of michigan deserve better. the people of america deserve better. they deserve someone in the supreme court who understands their lives and will stand up for them, not special interests.

they deserve someone on the supreme court who understands that nobody, not even the president of the united states, is above the law. they deserve someone on the supreme court who will work to keep dark money from foreign entities out of our elections. and they deserve someone on the supreme court who has consistently lived up to the high standards we ought to demand of our nation's leaders. in michigan, we teach our children that character matters. now it's time to show that we mean it. i urge my colleagues to vote no on brett kavanaugh's confirmation to the united states supreme court. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, i would just like to take a minute

and get a different podium put in, please. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my opposition to judge kavanaugh's nomination. i will speak later in the evening about my overall assessment of judge kavanaugh's record and nomination and about why i think some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focusing on the

wrong thing in deciding to support him. to echo my colleague from michigan just now, no one has a right to a seat on the united states supreme court. what we should be focused on is that the country has a right to an impartial, nonpartisan united states supreme court. they have a right to justices whose character and fitness for the office is beyond reproach and beyond doubt. and despite everything i have heard from judge kavanaugh's supporters, i do not think they can make that case. now, my purpose in speaking

right now is to express my deep concerns with judge kavanaugh's record of ruling against access to health care. mr. president, if confirmed, judge kavanaugh will be a deciding factor in the lives and livelihoods of millions of americans. yet time and again he has demonstrated a commitment to a partisan agenda that would strip away care from some of our most vulnerable people. as recently as 2017, judge kavanaugh criticized chief justice roberts' decision upholding the affordable care act. and in his confirmation hearing, judge kavanaugh would not commit to upholding legal protections for people with preexisting conditions, such as asthma, cancer, diabetes, and more.

confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court would put those protections at risk. and i have heard from people across new hampshire who are concerned about what will happen to them if they are denied coverage because of their preexisting condition. people like kristin from derry, new hampshire. kristin relies on medications that cost more than $1,200 every month to stay healthy, but if she lost her insurance because of her preexisting condition, she would not be able to afford that medication. kristin said, and this is a quote, i wouldn't be able to breathe correctly. my copd would worsen. my current standard of living, working full time as a social worker, a runner, active with my children would quickly come to an end. mr. president, that is what is

at stake with this vote. republican attorneys general backed by the trump administration are suing to eliminate protections for preexisting conditions. this case will soon be in front of the supreme court. and the next supreme court justice could very well be the deciding vote in that decision. we need a justice who would rise above partisanship, someone who will act impartially and rule on behalf of what is right for the american people. it is evident that judge kavanaugh is not that person. and there is no reason to believe that he would be an impartial arbiter when it comes to issues related to health care. throughout this confirmation process, judge kavanaugh has revealed himself to be staunchly partisan and never was that more clear than during his hearing on

the allegations raised by dr. christine blasey ford. during that hearing, he called those credible allegations against him -- and this is a quote -- revenge on behalf of the clintons and seemed to threaten his political enemies by saying, quote, what goes around comes around. there is ample reason to believe that judge kavanaugh would be an ally on the supreme court for the trump administration and republicans in congress who are seeking to undermine our health care system. and for the health and well-being of granite staters and all americans, i cannot support his nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. menendez: okay. mr. president, i rise today to oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court and to ask my colleagues, republicans and democrats alike, to recognize exactly what's at stake here.

the philosopher said if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss will stare back into you. my friends, we're here in the u.s. senate, we're staring into the abyss and when is staring back at us is a future in which the american people's trust in the supreme court is being irreparably damaged. to vote yes on brett kavanaugh is to send a message to every woman in america that your voice doesn't matter. if you risk everything, your security, your stability, your reputation to come forward and speak truth to power about a sexual assault, they will call you credible, they will call you courageous, but they will not believe you. it's a message that says, if you survived a sexual assault, don't bother telling anyone. because you must be mistaken. this traumatic and unforgettable

moment in your life never happened. it must have been someone else. my friends, to confirm judge brett kavanaugh with what we now know would be to forever tarnish the credibility and reputation of the highest court in our land. so here's what we know: we know that judge kavanaugh faces multiple credible allegations of sexual assault, and yet the investigation that was conducted looks nothing like the f.b.i. investigation that was promised. not by president trump, not by the senators who called for it, or by anyone else. we know that neither dr. ford nor judge kavanaugh were interviewed by law enforcement, the very subject of what's in the investigation. neither were interviewed. we know that dozens of people with corroborating evidence were flat-out ignored by investigators. i've heard some of my colleagues call this investigation,

quote-unquote, thorough. how do you call an investigation thorough when neither the accused or the accuser were interviewed by the f.b.i.? how do you call an investigation thorough when 40 corroborating witnesses who volunteered information to the f.b.i. in recent days were reportedly ignored? you can't get corroboration if you don't talk to corroborating witnesses. the answer is simple. it's not thorough and it's not trustworthy. this entire process, including the use of executive privilege to deny the senate access to hundreds of thousands of documents of judge kavanaugh has been shrouded in secrecy. and why the secrecy? because president trump and his team are desperate to get judge kavanaugh confirmed by any means necessary. let's remember what's going on here. the president of the united states is the subject of a

federal investigation into whether his campaign accepted assistance from a hostile foreign power during the 2016 election. already the president's campaign chairman, foreign policy advisor, former national security advisor have pled guilty to federal crimes. he could have chosen any of the judges included on the right-wing list assembled by the heritage foundation and the federalist society. instead, he picked the one judge with unprecedented views of presidential power. there is no other explanation for president trump choosing brett kavanaugh that i can think of other than he hopes that this will be his get out of jail card. the last few weeks have been a flurry of breaking news alerts and breathless gossiping in the halls. i'm thankful for dr. ford's courage and candor. she spoke her truth and has inspired countless others to break their silence.

i believe her. i believe survivors. new jersey is home to 1.8 million survivors. that's 1.8 million reasons to oppose brett kavanaugh. according to the bureau of justice statistics, less than a quarter of sexual assault victims reported those incidents to police in 2016, and after this past week, it's all too easy to see why. leader mcconnell has called the allegations of dr. ford, quote, unsubstantiateed smears. what an insulting statement. when will we as a society begin to believe women, to trust women? it can't come soon enough. i was in the midst of my first campaign for congress when anita hill's allegations of sexual assault against judge clarence thomas were investigated but ultimately disregarded by the senate. i'm proud to have been elected to the house in 1992, the

so-called year of the woman. across the capitol, a record four women were elected to the senate. my colleague, senator patty murray, decided to run after watching what happened to anita hill, and she is still here fighting for survivors and i'm proud to have her as my colleague. we look back at the clarence thomas hearings as a moment that failed america and failed all survivors of sexual assault, and yet here we are in 2018 and it appears as though we have made little progress. after dr. ford's testimony, my republican colleagues and even conservative pundits praised her credibility. it only took judge kavanaugh's outrageous performance, a performance we now know was misleading at best and untruthful at worst for these same republicans to cast her aside. the message they have sent to survivors who are brave enough to come forward is clear.

we will listen to you, but we will not believe you, and we will not trust you. despite having the cards stacked against her, i was shaken to the core by dr. christine blasey ford's words last week. she answered every question with bravery, with candor, with humility. meanwhile, judge kavanaugh was evasive, belligerent, and according to many of his acquaintances, repeatedly untruthful. what my republican colleagues can't seem to grasp is that you can be at the top of your wealthy prep school class and still abusive women. you can be a yale law school graduate and still abusive women. unfortunately, you can even be the president of the united states and still abusive women. further -- still abuse women. furthermore, judge kavanaugh's outburst was downright

disturbing for a potential supreme court justice. how many norms did judge kavanaugh shatter in that hearing room? it's one thing to be emotional. it's another to call the allegations of dr. ford or deborah ramirez and others a coordinated left-wing conspiracy, an act of political retribution for the clintons. he said the questions posed by democratic senators during his confirmation hearing were, quote, an embarrassment and called the process a circus. this coming from a man who pressed ken starr to ask president clinton sexually explicit questions. and we all know the circus that the starr investigation turned out to be. but i guess the same standards don't apply to brett kavanaugh. if you're brett kavanaugh, you can lie under oath about things big and small and never face the consequences. at the end of the day, judge kavanaugh judge kavanaugh's hysterical political rant confirmed what many of us already knew about this man.

he's a political operative cloaked in judicial robes. as kavanaugh said himself, quote, what goes around comes around. does this souped like the words of an impartial, independent judge? never before in my life have i seen a nominee let alone a supreme court nominee behave as though he was entitled to this lifetime appointment. he's not. it's the american people who are entitled to a justice who tells the truth, who conducts himself in a dignified manner, a justice who doesn't face credible accusations of sexual assault. the supreme court deserves better than brett kavanaugh and so do the american people. and more than a thousand legal scholars and counting agree, coming out against kavanaugh's nomination because his partisan and venomous rhetoric has no place on the supreme court.

this process has pursuant to poisoned the confirmation process. it was senate republicans who orchestrated the theft of a supreme court seat with more than nine months left in president obama's term. apparently, being nominated by president obama is more disqualifying than being accused by multiple women of sexual assaults. it's clear my colleagues will stop at nothing to tip the scales of justice against women, consumers, and patients for generations to come. for women, the stakes couldn't be higher. president trump promised to only nominate brothers who would overturn roe v. wade. and yes, earlier today, a colleague of mine pointed out that the republican national committee platform has long included overturning roe v. wade. in my view, that is precisely why we cannot trust a long-time

g.o.p. political operative like brett kavanaugh to uphold a woman's right to choose. there is a difference between saying that precedent deserves respect and saying that can cannot be overturned. they are not both the same. i think some of the things i have heard about the aspirations of some of my colleagues about judge kavanaugh are unlikely to be realized. this is what is at stake here. the basic principle that women have a right to make their own private medical decisions. my daughter has grown up never knowing what it was to live in a country where women were denied reproductive rights. now i fear my granddaughter may grow up never knowing what it was like to live in a country where women had reproductive rights. and it isn't just women's health that is at stake. the trump administration is arguing in federal court as we

speak that the a.c.a.'s protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional, which makes judge kavanaugh's record of ruling against consumers and siding with corporate interests all the more troubling. there are 3.8 million new jerseyans who have preexisting conditions. some illness during the course of their life, heart attack, diabetes, parkinson's, maybe some birth defect that had denied them in the past insurance coverage. we eliminated that under the affordable care act. no more discrimination. there are 3.8 million new jerseyans who have preexisting conditions. for me, it's another 3.8 million reasons to oppose kavanaugh's confirmation. so yes, the stakes have never been higher. the threat to our democracy is real. the decisions coming down from a supreme court with kavanaugh will change the course of america for decades to come.

the republican majority views the supreme court as an instrument to force an unpopular antiwoman, antiworker, sent civil rights agenda on the american people. meanwhile, president trump used the court as another weapon to flout the rule of law. it's time we take a stand for the integrity of our democratic institutions. it's time we live up to our duties set forth by article 2 of the constitution to provide advice and consent on supreme court nominations. in bestowing us this responsibility, the framers entrusted us with protecting the reputation and credibility of the highest court in our land. to confirm judge kavanaugh in the face of these allegations, in the face of the secrecy of the documents we could not obtain, in the face of the positions he took that are clearly in the minds of many of us untruthful before the committee, risk forever tarnishing one of the crown

jewels of our democracy. my friends, we're standing on the edge of a cliff. should we blindly go over that edge? we risk doing irreparable damage to the reputation and credibility of the supreme court. i implore my colleagues in the majority to pull us back in the direction of truth and decency. this isn't about right or left. this is about right or wrong. a vote to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote against survivors of sexual violence. a vote to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and end safe and legal abortion in this country. a vote to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote to overturn protections for preexisting conditions. a vote to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote to roll back civil rights and voting rights. it's to take us back to a time and place none of us, i believe, want to go to. and it's a vote the american people will not forget, not today, not tomorrow, not this november. not ever. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to shaun pugh, mark

mr.ary and jerry colson for the duration of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, it's an understatement to say that the last few weeks have been unusual in senate history. i've never seen anything like it in the eight years that i have been serving in this body. every day when we show up to work as we walk to our offices, we have to walk through a sea, a

mob of angry protesters, people screaming, shouting, yelling things at us. not pleasant things. in many instances, members have to be accompanied because they -- as they walk to and from their offices, to and from the senate floor where they cast their votes, to and from their committee hearings, in and out of rooms where they have to conduct their business. this is unusual. it's unpleasant. it's relatively unprecedented certainly in the time that i have been here. it's unfortunate, and it's unnecessary. you see, this is not how the process is supposed to work. this is not what the constitution contemplates or requires in connection with the confirmation of a supreme court nominee. it doesn't need to work this way, but in this case it did.

it did because a lot of people, starting with a small handful of people, made a deliberate choice to depart from the norm, to depart from rules and practices and operating procedures that are designed to protect the innocent and the guilty, designed to protect accusers and the accused, designed to protect the privacy of people who come forward with allegations, as well as those who have been nominated to serve in high positions. the allegations brought forward by dr. christine blasey ford were serious. i still remember and will never forget the precise moment when i was briefed on the nature of these allegations, on september 13, 2018. i was briefed by a small handful of judiciary committee staffers who had clearance to read to me an f.b.i. document they had just

received. i wasn't allowed to share the details of that communication with anyone, not even members of my own staff because at the time they were confidential, couldn't be discussed with the public, couldn't be discussed with anyone who hadn't received specific clearance from the f.b.i. to do so. at the time these allegations were brought forward, i was able to tell my staff only the following: the allegations raised by this individual -- i didn't know her name at the tim. they are serious to the point that i will not support this nominee. i cannot and will not vote to confirm this nominee if these allegations are true. but the allegations are of such a nature that they could be looked into. we can discern whether or not they can be corroborated. we can interview witnesses in an effort to get to the truth.

and over the last roughly three weeks, that's what has happened. we've undertaken everything we know how to do to get to the truth. we've had f.b.i. agents interviewing witnesses. we've had witnesses interviewed by committee staff. we ourselves have interviewed dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. it was at the hearing where we heard from dr. ford and judge kavanaugh that we learned for the first time that dr. ford's attorneys who i'll just state here parenthetically were oddly recommended by the ranking democrat on the senate judiciary committee. but dr. ford's attorneys, those same attorneys recommended by the ranking democrat on the senate judiciary committee failed ever to inform dr. ford that from the outset she wouldn't have to go through the process this way. from the out set, she could have and would have been given

the opportunity to tell her story in private to f.b.i. agents who would have met her at her home in palo alto, california, interviewing her in the privacy and comfort and protection of her own home with confidentiality. that a separate group of f.b.i. agents could have and would have then visited judge kavanaugh and any of the other alleged eyewitnesses to this event, and at that point those reports would have been collected and eventually handed over to the senate judiciary committee. the committee then could have and would have had the opportunity to convene a closed hearing and to investigate these allegations without having to subject anyone to the indignity of discussing very detailed private circumstances of their lives in front of the american people. it remains clear to me that dr. ford never wanted a circus. she never asked for any of this.

she was reluck -- reluctant to come forward. ultimately she agreed to allow her name to be released at the moment she recognized that there were enough people who were going to figure out who she was. but she didn't want to have to tell her story in public. she could have and would have and should have been given the opportunity to tell her story in private, but that's not how it happened because her lawyers didn't tell her. even after her name came forward, even after she felt compelled to disclose her name, her lawyers apparently didn't tell her that judiciary committee staff would be willing to fly out to california and meet with her in private in her home or anywhere else she wanted to meet. that apparently was not communicated to her. one must ask the question, why? why didn't they tell her that?

i don't know. at this point i can't know that. the conversations that occurred between attorneys and their clients are typically and permanently confidential. but just as an objective witness to a lot of this, and again, not privy to their private conversations, i have to wonder whether at best her lawyers may have been neglectful in telling her that she had those options. at worst, they may have deliberately sacrificed her privacy, her comfort, her interests in pursuit of their own vein ambitions or -- vain ambitions or perhaps a political agenda. either outcome is unfortunate. either way we got there, led to the same outcome, and we are where we are. for the last three weeks we've done everything we can to get to the bottom of these allegations.

we've had witnesses interviewed. we ourselves have interviewed dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. at the end of this what we see is someone who has been badly hurt. it is apparent to me that dr. ford was harmed and has endured deep pain. someone hurt her and they hurt her badly. but there was nothing to corroborate. her allegation that it was judge kavanaugh that hurt her. not one of the alleged eyewitnesses to this event can confirm that such a gathering ever occurred either in the summer of 1982 or at any other time. not one. a number of the witnesses have said not only do they not remember such an event ever occurring, but that this type of event with this set of circumstances, with this combination and number of people would not have happened. this is not how they gathered. and so we're left with an

uncorroborated accusation against an individual who has led an exemplary life, a life of public service, one that includes now seven f.b.i. background investigations, some 150-plus interviews conducted by the f.b.i. and again, a lot of that was conducted prior to his appointment to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit where he served for 12 years and published some 300 opinions, in which he has had no objective other than to find the right answer under the law. this is someone who is a model, exemplary citizen from everything we can tell. he serves his community. he feeds the hungry. he clothes the naked. he serves his fellow beings with a love and admiration for them that is genuine and distinct.

against this backdrop we cannot, we will not, we must not take a single uncorroborated allegation and sink this man's hard-earned good name. the demands of justice are such that we've got to hear accusers, those who have been harmed, but without corroboration, we cannot assume someone to be guilty in the absence of an adequate evidential chair foundation. -- evidentiary foundation. i'm going to adhere that maybe we do know something more than that because other allegations have come forward. well, yeah, there are other allegations, but let's talk about those other allegations for a minute. the ramirez allegation that came forward about a week after the "washington post" announced dr. ford's name in a story published by the "new yorker" was debunked in less than 24 hours after the

story was run, debunked by "the new york times" who have acknowledged upon interviewing dozens upon dozens of witnesses in an effort to find corroboration for the ramirez allegation. not one person could or would corroborate the story. not one. moreover, "the new york times" concluded there were a number of instances in which ms. ramirez herself, in calling former classmates from yale, acknowledged that she didn't know whether or not it was brett kavanaugh who engaged in the conduct that she alleged. the other allegation coming forward, brought forward by the client of mr. avenatti was itself on its face of a different sort than the others. this allegation was brazen in what it assumed about judge kavanaugh, what it asked the public to believe. it accused this man, this

lifelong public servant of engaging deliberately in a sustained criminallent -- criminal enterprise that had as its object the deliberate drugging and gang rape of young women. here again, this is a story that could not find a single shred of corroboration and was severely undercut by a number of other factors, including the fact that the accuser has herself was not even in high school at the same time as judge kavanaugh. and no one alleged to have been present had any recollection either of the parties described or of any of the circumstances surrounding these alleged events. but the timing of these other allegations coming forward was nonetheless used to smear the good name of judge kavanaugh and to imply some sort of guilt on

the part of judge kavanaugh, some sort of corroboration on the ford allegation. the ford allegation was itself serious and had a lot of indicia of credibility on its face. that's why i was so concerned the moment i heard about it. that's why we've now spent three weeks doing everything we can to get to the bottom of it, finding no corroboration. but here we are with these protests going on, with a sea of angry people shouting at us everywhere we go, chasing senator cruz and his wife out of a restaurant as they were peacefully enjoying dinner, verbally and physically assaulting senator perdue and his wife as they were making their way from a flight into reagan national airport to their vehicle, for a sustained period of period of 30 minutes, including a moment when mrs. perdue was nearly pushed down a flight of

stairs. these come in the wake of other unfortunate events, including a moment when rand paul was attacked at his home, broke six ribs, causing ex-treesh educating pain and -- excruciating pain and injuries that have the potential of affecting him for the rest of his life, this same rand paul was himself also the potential victim of a shooting when a crazed leftist decided to show up at a republican baseball practice and open fire on republican members of congress simply because they were republican members of congress, almost killing congressman steve scalise in the process. so this moment of emotional intensity came here as a result of a process, a process that

some are now starting to say is broken. i insist that it's not. the process isn't broken. there's nothing wrong with the constitution. it's certainly not broken. to the extent something wrong happened here, it's not because the thing itself doesn't work, because it's flawed by it's very nature. it's because in this instance the left broke it, the left sabotaged it, the left deliberately impeded its ability to do what it was supposed to do. it's not as though this isn't without precedent. they've done this in the past. they've done it for decades. they did it with judge bork when they converted his last name into a verb when they accused him of being a racist and a sexist. they pretended to be outraged when they found out that judge ginsburg has smoked marijuana.

then a few years later they engaged in a high-tech public lynching of clarence thomas. and then they later did it to sam alito, calling him a racist. then they did it to neil gorsuch, calling him a sexist. these efforts weren't limited, of course, to supreme court nominees. they also deliberately went after miguel estrada, specifically and admittedly because he was a latino. and they tried to take down amy kony barrett's nomination to a federal appellate court because they considered her too catholic this is unacceptable. we've been asked to settle for this. it's not time to settle. it's time to expect more. it's time to demand more. it's time to demand a process that is respectful of human

beings, of the accusers and the accused in the world. it's time to do this in a manner that respects this institution and allows us to respect each other. you have to remember that when we reduce our arguments from matters of policy in which we acknowledge good-faith disagreements to simple and emotional questions of good versus evil, people are going to tend to believe that characterization. and ultimately they are going to tend to act on that characterization, and the results won't alms be pretty -- always be pretty. at some point this descends to a moment when the victim won't just be someone's character, pride, or the quiet enjoyment of someone's dinner, or the ability of someone to not be injured while mowing his lawn. at some point it's going to be

one of us or someone's husband or wife, someone's children. earlier this week, we received news that someone had deliberately released personal, private information regarding members of the united states senate, republican members of the united states, not coincidentally, with the promise and the threat that more information would be released, including information about medical records and histories of our children for the specific purpose of influencing and intimidating members into taking a particular position on this nomination. this is unacceptable. it's also unacceptable when in response to the attack on rand paul, which i mentioned just a moment ago, an msnbc anchor actually referred to that

horrific event for senator paul and his family as one of her favorite stories. that's not okay. all of this hurts real people, not just members of the senate, not just dr. ford and her family or judge kavanaugh and his family, although it certainly hurt them. it also hurts the senate, it hurts the supreme court. it hurts our very constitutional republic as it was set up as it was designed. so, again, we get back to the question of why. why does this happen? i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it happens because you cannot take this many eggs from the american people and put them in one basket without creating a lot of high, intense emotions. you cannot require the american people to work many weeks or many months out of every year

just to pay their federal taxes and not have them be very emotional about what happens in washington. you cannot concentrate this much power in washington, dc and take power away from the american people where the power is supposed exercised at state and local love and move it away from them and from washington to from the people's elected representatives to unaccountable bureaucrats who make law without any accountability to the american people. you cannot do that without unavoidably, inevitably, unsustainably raising the political temperature in this country. it cannot be done. it is the nature of the thing itself. so sometimes we've got to stop giving into the impulse to expand the size and scope of reach of the federal government because it tends to make the people less powerful. the whole system was setup to lower the political temperature in the country. we are a diverse country, and in one way or another there has

always been great diversity within the country, among and between the states and their different populations. this was understood at the founding just as it is understood today. this is one of the reasons by divine design this was designed in a way as to lower the political temperature in washington by keeping most of the decision close to the people at the state and at the local level, recognizing that there's a whole lot more unity at the state and at the local level than there is at the national level. that's why most powers are supposed to remain close to the people through the states and localities. sometimes our instincts are wrong. sometimes our instincts lead us into danger. sometimes we fear the wrong things. you know, mr. president, people in this country understandably are terrified, scared to death of rattlesnakes. i, myself, am scared to death of rattlesnakes. we have them in my state of utah. we don't like them.

most people are shocked to discover that there are a whole lot people who are killed every year as a result of deer, not ralt snakes. -- rattlesnakes. deer results in many times more deaths every year than rattlesnakes, but we fear the rattlesnake more because it looks scary. sometimes our instinct leads us in the wrong direction. sometimes our instinct is to do something through government that might make matters worse rather than better. it reminds me of a time when i worked across the street at supreme court of the united states. i was a law clerk to justice alito. and my coclerks and i worked in a relatively small office, and we discovered something during the summer when we started our job, that the air conditioning in our office made our office unbearably cold, so cold that as we stat at our -- sat at our

desks and wrote memorandas and did our jobs, sometimes our hands would get so cold we almost couldn't feel them. so what did we do? we went over the thermostat and turned up the thermostat thinking that would solve the problem. after we turned up the thermostat, it didn't do any good, it was still freezing cold. at at that point we opened the window and let in the hot, muggy air that is known to inhabit washington, d.c., during the summer months. it was inefficient, but we couldn't figure out another way. we talked to the maintenance people in the building, they didn't know what to make of it, we moved on. as summer turned into fall and fall became winter, it became cold. we had a similar problem but in the other direction when it got to be winter. when it was really cold outside, it was burning hot inside of our office, so hot that we were

sweating, so hot we felt compelled to walk over to the thermostat and turn it down hoping and expecting that it would lower the temperature and alleviate the discomfort. it didn't do a bit of good. it was still burning hot. so what did we do? woe opened the -- we opened the windows, and it kept the office freezing hot or -- freezing cold or very hot. after many months of the head maintenance inspector for the building came in and looked at the heating and air conditioning system in the office. after taking it all apart, he came to us and said, i think i found the problem. the thermostat was installed backwards. every time you were toning the therm -- turning the thermostat up, it was raising the temperature, when you lowered the thermostat, it was raising the temperature. sometimes things have the opposite effect from what we

want. i believe it has often been with the best of motives, instincts, and intentions that we have taken power to washington, d.c., cons straighting, centralizing more power here in washington, d.c., and then allocating it out to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and in some cases federal judges, nn the process we disempowered the american people. we disconnected them from their own government. this, in turn, has raised the temperature when it comes to things like confirming a supreme court justice. this, by the way, was often done in the past by a voice vote, without even the need for a roll call vote. sometimes it was done unanimously. sometimes it was done overwhelmingly. not every nominee was confirmed, and i don't think that should ever be the case. even in dpornlg washington's -- george washington's administration, not every nominee to the supreme court were confirmed. but nominees were treated with dignity and with respect.

this occurred in part, i believe, because the constitution kept the temperature appropriately moderated. because the federal government was doing only those things that the constitution unmistakably placed in the hands of the federal government and of congress which sets policy for the federal government. the people in turn remained in touch and connected to that government to the extent it affected them because that policy was still be set by the people's elected representatives in congress and not by unelected, unaccountable jurists or bureaucrats. the opposite has happened since then. it is not the case that every supreme court nominee in recent history has brought about so much contention. you look at the confirmation

process that led to the ultimate appointment of ruth bader ginsburg, of stephen breyer, of elena kagan, of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. these justices were confirmed overwhelmingly, and they were confirmed with a lot of votes from members of both political parties. it doesn't have to be as contentious as it always is, but in this instance with republican nominees, with conservative nominees, the left has been unwilling to allow the process to even move forward as it shouldn't as -- and has chosen instead to smear these individuals and to treat them in an unkind, undignified manner. no mother and no father would want to see a son or a daughter subjected to this kind of treatment, not in our country, not for a position like this. no one would want that.

it does not have to be this way. if we can correct course, if we can figure out that we have in some ways been working with a broken thermostat. if we can acknowledge the fact that in trying to make things better, sometimes we make them worse by bringing more power to washington and then handing this power over to unelected bureaucrats and judges. we can do this. we can lower the temperature, lower the statements in the united states of america. we live in a diverse republic. we need to allow the people in all of their diverse viewpoints throughout the various states to work things out as they deem fit. let utah be utah, let new york be new york, and let nebraska be nebraska. we don't have to make as many decisions in washington, d.c., as we have been. i believe ultimately this will come down to a question like this. we've got a choice to make.

a choice between federalism, that is restoring the proper balance of power between different actors within our system of government on the one hand or contention and ultimately violence on the other hand. i choose the peaceful way. i choose the way that doesn't result in as much contention. i choose the constitutional way. i believe that document was written in such a way as to protect our liberty, to respect our divergent interests, and to allow the american people people to flourish and prosper because not every decision would have to be made by the same people and the government would remain accountable to the governed. federalism is the answer, mr. president. at the end of this long and

grueling process, i'm grateful for the system that we have. i hope that we can return to its constitutional origins, respect the letter and the spirit of the constitution of the united states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.