against my good friend, my dear friend from maine. the hateful, the aggressive, the truly, truly all of manner with which so many are acting now. it's got to end. this is not who we are. this is not who we should be. this is not who we raise our children to be. so i -- as we move forward, again, through a very difficult time, i think, for this body and for this country, i want to

urge us to a place where we are able to engage in that civil discourse, which is what the senate is supposed to be all about, that we're able to show respect for one another's views and differences, and that when a hard vote is taken, that there is a level of respect for the decision that each of us makes. and there's another thing that i do hope. and again i'll refer to my friend from maine. and i will note that if there has been a silver lining in these bitter, bitter weeks which quite honestly remains to be seen, i do think what we have seen is a recognition by

both sides, a recognition by both sides that we must do more to protect and prevent sexual assault and to help the victims of these assaults. there has been a national discussion. there has been an outpouring of discussion, conversation, fears, tears, frustration, rage. there is an emotion that really has been unleashed in these recent weeks, and these are discussions that we need to have as a country. we need to have these as a

country. we need to bring -- we need to bring these, these survivors to a place where they feel that they can heal. but until you come out of the shadow and know -- and do so without shame, it's pretty hard to heal. i have met with so many survivors, and i know that every single one of us has. and i heard from colleagues as they have shared with me that they have been truly surprised, many stunned, by what they are learning is the prevalence of this, unfortunately, in our society today.

in alaska -- and the presiding officer knows in your state -- the levels of sexual assault that we see within our native american and alaska native communities, the rates are incredibly devastating. it is not something that we say we'll get to tomorrow. we've heard those voices. we've heard those voices, and i hope that we have all learned something, that we owe it to the victims of sexual assault to do more and to do better and to do it now with them. mr. president, i'm going to close, and thank you.

i truly hope that we can be at that place where we can move forward in a manner that shows greater respect, greater comity. we owe it to the people of america to return to a less rancorous confirmation process. in the spirit of that comity, and, again, while i voted no on cloture vote today, and i will be a no tomorrow, i will in the final tally be asked to be recorded as present. and i do this because a friend, a colleague of ours is in montana this evening, and tomorrow at just about the same

hour that we're going to be voting he's going to be walking his daughter down the aisle, and he won't be present to vote. and so i have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. it will not change the outcome of the vote. but i do hope that it reminds us that we can take very small, very small steps to be gracious with one another. and maybe those small gracious steps can lead to more. but i know that as hard as these matters are that we deal with, we're humans. we have family that we love. we don't spend near enough time with them.

and making sure that we can do one small thing to make that family a little bit better is a better way for tomorrow. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. new jersey, excuse me. mr. booker: that's okay. i'd like to ask that two members of my staff, sophia brill and daniel shucker be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the time on the postcloture nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: thank you very much. mr. president, on september 16 dr. christine blasey ford publicly came forward to share that brett kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. this was a remarkably courageous act. it was one in which she hesitated to do. it was something that she struggled with.

but yet she said time and time again that she believed it was her civic duty, her civic duty, that her sense of citizenship, that act of grace, that feeling that you have a commitment to country, to causes larger than yourself, she put herself forward. she said she was terrified to do so. she said she feared for what the impact would be on her family. and indeed, the impact on her family was terrifying. she endured hatred and bile poured out to her, death threats. she had to leave her family home, split her family up at times. she had to engage security for her own protection. and when dr. ford came before the judiciary committee to testify, she reiterated that she was afraid. she reiterated how terrified she

was. but she stated again and again and again this ideal of patriotic duty, this ideal of civic responsibility because she believed that there's something about our institutions that is sacred and that the highest court in the land, and there could be millions of qualified people in america, thousands of folks -- indeed the president's list itself has dozens of folks -- she said this person sexually assaulted her and should not go on the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment. and so she sat before us in the face of endless harassment, glaring public scrutiny into all aspects of her life. threats against her family. dr. ford then gave testimony that was powerful, that to many was jarring. she talked about her private truth, her experience, how it

affected her life. she said again and again she wanted to be helpful to the committee. she treated every member of the committee on the republican side, on the democratic side with respect. she extended them grace. she was cross-examined by a prosecutor for the republicans. she engaged with that prosecutor with a sense of decency and honor. she didn't stretch the truth or try to dodge questions. she spoke honestly and candidly and from her heart. she shared details that she said had been seared into her memory. she talked about the narrow set of stairs in that house that she climbed to use the restroom. she talked about being pushed from behind into a bedroom. she talked about the music being turned up louder as she struggled. she talked about brett kavanaugh on top of her, hand over her

mouth trying to stop her as she yelled for help. she said that she thought she was going to be raped. she said that she thought she might be accidentally killed. and there was mark judge, a person she identified, watching, refusing to help her. both mark and brett were laughing. dr. ford described that laughter as searing into her memory. she talked about it as being indelible. she told us she would never forget, and i quote, she would never forget the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. i believe her. i believe dr. ford. i still believe her. and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle spoke up, calling dr. ford's

testimony credible. many have said that they believe her, at least that they believe someone assaulted her. they gave credence to the power of that experience, an experience that reflects that of many people who are experience trauma. you don't remember it like a video recording, but there are moments that are seared into your mind. people who have experienced trauma, her experience was consistent with that. even though the senate hearing would not allow experts to come in, we all know enough now through this experience to know that the way she described her experiences, the things that she remembered, all of that spoke to the credibility of a courageous american doing their civic duty. i was surprised that even the president of the united states called her sincere, called her testimony compelling. that was until he stood at a rally and mocked her.

the president of the united states, the most powerful man in the country, perhaps the most powerful person in the world, mocked her and got uproarious laughter, the same thing that was seared in her memory, people laughing at her, the president ignited that in a crowd, made her again the focus of laughter and mocking. and this body that i revere, this body that i love, my colleagues that i respect on both sides of the aisle, this body that was designed to be the world's most deliberative body, this body that was designed to be thoughtful and to take time, to analyze, the question is, we heard words about her testimony, but what did those words follow

with? were they like dust in the wind or were they substantive feelings of believing someone, admiring and honoring their courage for coming forward? did we treat her that way? well, if they did believe her, if they did honor her words and her courage and the risk that she took, then this body, that judiciary committee of which i'm a part, would have insisted on a full, fair, thorough, and complete f.b.i. investigation that included the many witnesses who stepped forward, that could have corroborated her testimony, that could have contradicted judge kavanaugh's testimony. this body would have insisted that we take the time to do a thorough investigation because it's not just about dr. ford. there are millions of survivors -- women and men -- watching how

this body will deal with the seriousness of sexual assault. will we listen to survivors? will we honor them? will we honor them enough to fully investigate their charges? and this isn't just charges. these are charges against someone who is up for one of the most important positions in our nation, a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. but, no, they did not honor them. if they honored them, they would have insisted on a full f.b.i. investigation. indeed, when another survivor came forward, ms. ramirez talking about her incident with judge kavanaugh during college days where judge kavanaugh diminished his drinking, evasively talked about his drinking and classmate after classmate after his testimony came forward and said he was lying, he was misleading, republican and democratic classmates were offended by the way he talked about his

behavior. and it was in those college days that ms. ramirez said that judge kavanaugh exposed himself to her. she identified 20 witnesses that were either eyewitnesses or could have corroborated the evidence. she talked in detail about who could have substantiated her claims, claims of the kind of drunkenness that we heard public statements from his friends seemed consistent and seemed to implicate the truthfulness of someone who is going to the highest court. and did we honor that woman, did we honor that survivor by doing an investigation, by going to and at least talking to the 20 witnesses that she put forward, another woman who was being move to concurred, another woman who was a victim of hate spewing at her, belittling her? did we honor a survivor and

simply listen, interview the 20 people she said could have proved the factual nature of her allegations? no, we didn't. we didn't honor a survivor. we didn't listen to a survivor. we didn't take the time in the world's most deliberative body to listen to a woman's claims and take the step to see if they were true or not. this is what, to me, is so deeply offensive. it's that you have two women who come forward making what claims even the president said at first seemed sincere and compelling, but we don't take the next step to fully investigate their claims so we can know what the facts are. the truth is something that the american public deserves.

an investigation that gets to the truth is something that the american public deserves, that dr. ford deserves, that ms. ramirez deserves, that even brett kavanaugh deserves -- to let the truth come out. but this f.b.i. investigation was part of a larger sham. and people on the right, colleagues of mine, accused dr. ford with her sincere testimony, they accused her of being part of a coordinated partisan smear campaign. now, think about that. she told her husband in 2012 about the attack. was she coordinating somehow with democrats back in 20 is 12 before judge -- back in 2012 before judge kavanaugh was anywhere near being on the supreme court? no. she talked about it to her

therapist. she talked about it to her husband. she named that it was brett kavanaugh years before brett kavanaugh was even on a list of consideration by the president. in 2013, she discussed the assault again in an individual therapy session, and in that same year, she told a close friend that she had been assaulted as a teenager when she was in a room with two drunken boys. that's not a partisan attack back in 12013. in 2016 she told had another friend that she had been sexually assaulted by someone who went on to become a federal judge. in 2017 she told yet another friend. she told each of these three friends that a person who had assaulted her had become a federal judge. this does not sound like some kind of partisan smear tactic. this sounds like a woman who has been telling the truth, who has been telling the truth for years. -- about brett kavanaugh.

and the least this body could do was pause for a moment and not do a sham f.b.i. investigation where you talk to just a handful of people but do a full f.b.i. investigation because these charges are serious. and meanwhile millions of americans, survivors themselves and others, are watching how we deal with something that the center for disease control says happens to one out of every three women in america, and how do we deal with those charges? one out of every six in en-- one out of every six men in america. how do we deal with that when a survivor comes before this body? how does it honor that?

you would to say a coordinated, partisan effort. that's what we're seeing here, a coordinated, partisan effort to put blinders on, to not seek the truth and to rush this to tomorrow, to a final vote. now long before dr. ford's bravery, i was one of those democrats, one of those senators, one of those americans that expressed my sincere and deeply held concern for judge kavanaugh's record. i said early that i would not support him. i opposed his nomination. now then i opposed his nomination because i was deeply concerned that we have a president of the united states that is a subject of a criminal investigation, and that president picked the one person from his heritage foundation and federalist society list that had

a view of presidential power that i believed would give that president immunity, should issues relating to that investigation come before the supreme court. i'm deeply troubled about his views about women's rights to make their own medical decisions. i'm troubled about his views on workers' rights to organize. on voting rights, on civil rights, and on the principle of equal justice under the law. i'm concerned about things that he said about dark money influencing our campaigns, foreign dark money. his record demonstrated very clearly to me that if confirmed to the supreme court, judge kavanaugh would continue to prioritize the interests of the powerful few over the rights of everyday americans, that we would see an erosion of individual rights in this country. but i still believed we needed to have a fair and thorough vetting of this nominee, consistent with our constitutional obligations, and

it would eventually get to the floor and we would have our vote. and in the many weeks leading up to judge kavanaugh's hearing before the judiciary committee, many democratic colleagues and i pushed for the same kind of transparency and a process, even if we knew where we were going to go, the process should have been patience the process should have been bipartisan, the judiciary committee mass a long history in the majority and the minority working together to set ground rules for the committee process. i've watched the judiciary committee for many years before i came to this body. it was the one committee, the number one committee i wanted to be on five years ago when i came to the senate. there are legends still on that committee, statesmen on both sides is of the aisle, men i respect. but this process from the very beginning has been a sham. it has undermined the ability for senators to perform our

constitutional duty to advise and consent on the nominee because of the withholding of critical information that i believe is absolutely necessary to evaluate someone. this constitutional duty means that we should have a process that allows transparency into that person's record. the public mass a right to know -- the public has a right to know who the individual is that we're voting on tomorrow, what their record is. the public has a right to know. why would we hide their record from public scrutiny? so step one of the sham was the republican majority's refusal to request any records from judge kavanaugh's time as staff secretary to president george w. bush. zero records, none requested whatsoever. now, brett kavanaugh himself held that position for three

years, and he called those three years of his career -- and i quote -- the most interesting and most formative years of his career. the most interesting and most formative in shaping his approach to serving as a judge and in which he presumably advised the president on everything from national security policy to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, so many critical issues that are germane to his job and his experience and the formation of his ideals was happening during those times. but we said we could see nothing from his record, even things that are not classified, not national security, things that would give us a better window into who he is. step two of the sham was to create a wholly unaccountable process for the fraction of the white house records that the republican majority did request from kavanaugh's time in the

white house counsel's office. this process was essentially made up, had no reflection in the history of this body, no reflection at all. and so what happened was they put into place a practice where a private lawyer bill burck, who happens to be a longtime political operative, who was a former deputy to brett kavanaugh himself when he was staff secretary, was put in part of the process as a chokehold on documents getting to senators for our evaluation. most of the documents of this candidate's work product have not been seen by any senator here. in fact, about 90% of his relevant work experience, his relevant work products, has not been reviewed by any senator here. imagine hiring somebody where

you're only seeing 90% of their resume -- where you only see 10% of their resume because 90% is obscure. you wouldn't hire most of the folks -- most of the folks here wouldn't hire an inearn in their office if somebody was hiding 90% of their reserve pavement but then there's step three of the sham. in conjunction with mr. burck, the committee chairman designated 186,000 pages, something that was new called committee confidential, in order to hide them from the public because they might harm the nomination. imagine this -- the public having a right to know, the public needing transparency. now they're hiding yet again under the name "committee confidential" critical documents. and they withheld 102,000 pages from the committee altogether, threatening to invoke some nebulous constitutional privilege. as a result, today just hours before the final vote, only 7% of kavanaugh's record from the

bush white house has been released to senators. we are making a decision only knowing 7% of their work product. when women's rights, when workers' rights, when lgbtq's rights, when affordable care act is all in the balance, we know so little about this candidate. and because of all at stake colleagues and i made the decision to release those documents but it was just a fraction. meanwhile judge kavanaugh's initial testimony before the committee raised my concern because he continued to evade questions, refused to answer our questions. but then after dr. blasey ford came forward, he gave his testimony, and i was stunned. you see, at judge kavanaugh's initial hearing in early september, he testified that he wanted to stay, and i quote, three zip codes away from

politics. he insisted that the supreme court must never, i emphasize that word, never be vieweds a a partisan institution. but when he came before the judiciary committee again last week judge kavanaugh jettisoned his own advice, his own belief in judicial temperament, his own belief in how a judge should behave and be nonpartisan, and i leveled blatantly political accusations. he said the accusations against him were nothing more than quote an orchestrated political hit, even speculating that they were moated by a, quote, the revenge on behalf of the clintons. he cast blame on outside left-wing opposition groups. he held -- he told the democrats that are questioning of him at the hearings had been, quote, an embarrassment. he was belligerent. he was evasive. at times he was outright deceptive and at times he was deeply disrespectful to my

senate colleagues. he displayed the type of fierce partisanship that no american should ever want to see in a federal judge. he went on to say i, quote, almost as if a menacing threat, he said what goes around comes around. what goes around comes around. is this someone who could sit on the highest court in the land, where political issues might come before him, that has not already revealed himself to be deeply partisan? has not already revealed himself to have a deep-seated anger towards people of certain political stripe. is this someone who shows the kind of judicial temperament not for a district court, not for a circuit court, but for the highest court in the land, the court of last resort. he said all of this in response to questions. he didn't say all this in response to questions. this wasn't off the cuff comments. this was part of the his

prepared testimony. those quotes were in his prepared testimony. in another instance during his testimony, he warned that, quote, this is a circus, he said. the consequences will extend long past my nomination. the consequences will be with us for decades. that's how i want to end. what are the consequences for the way this has won -- for a sham process, for a sham f.b.i.? what are the consequences in relation to women who came forward before the world's most deliberative body with credible accusations of sexual misconduct, of sexual assault, of sexual violence? what are the consequences to a body that runs a partisan process, that ignores the truth, that shields relevant

aspects of his record 90% from the public? what are the consequences as they rush to the senate floor hoping nobody knows the truth and ignoring investigate something some of the most serious charges that could be leveled against someone, charges of violence, charges of sexual assault? -- charges of assault? what are the consequences for this body behaving in this way? what are the consequences for dr. christine blasey ford who has forever altered her life for her civic duty, for her patriotism, for her love of country? she sacrificed to come forward, and how do we treat her? this has been an emotional week for so many, and i have seen and heard and witnessed the pain

, the trauma that has been dredged up. i've heard from some of my colleagues in private meetings in telling about dozens of people coming forward to them having never told people about their sexual assault, and now they come and tell their senator hoping that their story, that their pain, that they haven't even shared with their spouse will somehow make a difference in the larger story of our country, will somehow make a difference at this moment when a woman, when two women were not being listened to, were not letting their stories get the worthy recognition, the worthy investigation. i've heard my colleague after colleague tell me the stories, the painful stories, and i've heard them myself. friends of mine who i never knew , never knew they were assaulted. i never knew their pain, never knew of their trauma.

but at this moment in american history, they felt like they had to come forward. they had to tell their truth like christine blasey ford, like ms. ramirez, they felt now is the time to speak up and stop this nation from making a mistake and try to stop the injustice and try to end a national nightmare where one out of three women are assaulted, and most of them don't feel comfortable coming forward. they don't feel safe coming forward. they feel like if they come forward they'll be maligned, they'll be hated, they'll be disrespected, they'll be disregarded, their charges will be slipped under the rug. their charges will be ignored. but yet, a chorus of women and men all across this country have been telling their stories, screaming into this nation,

hoping the national conversation will shift in this country from abusing those who have been abused to elevating truth again. this body has had a test, and we are failing that test. this body has had a chance. this body has had a responsibility, and we have surrendered that responsibility. and so tomorrow we vote, and it seems like the dye is cast. i heard there were celebrations and cheering in the white house. and in the last few hours i've also heard the pain and the anguish and the hurt, and i've heard the tears. it seems so unjust. it seems so unfair that two courageous women came forward to this body, and we couldn't even investigate their claims. we couldn't even take time to talk to witnesses.

and so a lot of folk now are asking me what now? i want to conclude by reading some words from another painful period. , where people didn't know what this body would do. there was injustice in this land, and people didn't know what this body would do. hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands came forward to march and to protest and to sit in, and they didn't know what this body would do, but they stood anyway and they fought anyway. sometimes they were beaten. in fact in one case on a bridge in alabama they were beaten and bloodied. one of my colleagues in the other chamber, john lewis, had his head split open, but they eventually got over that bridge and got to montgomery, and a man named king gave this speech to those people who were tempted to surrender to cynicism in that time. he gave this speech to those

people who wanted to give up. he gave that speech to those people who were hurting. this is what he said, and i quote, he goes i know you're asking today how long will it take. somebody's asking how long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne. somebody's asking when will wounded justice line prostrate on the streets, be lifted from the dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. somebody is asking when will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the nocturnal bosom of this lonely night plucked from the weary souls with chains of fierce and the manacles of death. how long will justice be crucified and truth bear it?

i come to say to you this afternoon however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long because truth crushed to the earth will rise again. how long? not long. because no lie can live forever. how long? not long. because you shall reap what you sow. how long? not long. how long? not long. because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. and so i say to every american that is hurting tonight, every american that's angry tonight, tomorrow we face a defeat, but we shall not be defeated. tomorrow it may seem like a

loss, but all hope is not lost. i have faith in us as a country. i know it has been a long journey. i know we have suffered much, but i have a faith in this country that is abiding and cannot be destroyed because we are a nation that always finds a way to move forward, to learn, to grow. and what is dependent upon us doing that is for us to never ever give up. never give up. the days ahead will be difficult. it will not be easy. but i have faith in america. we will learn. we will grow. we will get better. we will come together if we never give up. tomorrow the vote may be what it is. the dye may be cast, but i will never give up on this country. i will never give up on women. i will never give up on the

ideals and principle that we all swear an oath to, that this nation truly will be one day a nation of liberty and justice for all. thank you, mr. president. mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. several of my republican colleagues have mentioned that some of us came out in

opposition to judge kavanaugh almost immediately after he was nominated by the president. count me in, i was one of those people. and i say that without any apologies whatsoever because i was familiar with the record of brett kavanaugh on the court where he sits. i was familiar with his record as a member of the bush administration. didn't have all the information, but i surely had enough to understand that if confirmed and seated, he would be absolutely a member of the

hard right majority which has done so much, so much harm to the people of this country over the last many years. so right off, within 24 hours i was opposed, and that was exactly the right decision, and that is why i will vote tomorrow against the seating of judge kavanaugh. now many people in this country do not fully appreciate the role that the supreme court plays in our lives. they know what the president does. maybe they know what congress does. but they don't know what the supreme court does. so i would suggest, mr. president, that in north dakota and in vermont and all over this country, you've got people who are saying what kind of corrupt campaign finance system do we have?

not just progressives say that. conservatives say that. democrats say that. who believes that in the united states of america a handful of billionaires, some democrats, mostly republicans, can spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who represent their interests? who thinks that's right? not many people do. but people do not understand that we are in that position today because of a 5-4 supreme court decision regarding citizens united, a decision which is now undermining american democracy. and there are those who think that citizens united did not go far enough that billionaires should be able to give money directly to senators and congressmen, make them directly their employees.

i have zero doubt that judge kavanaugh will continue that majority approach to allowing billionaires to control our political system. 1965, an enormously important act was signed by lyndon johnson called the voting rights act, and it said that all of our people, regardless of the color of their skin, should have the right to vote. not a very radical idea. and yet a few years ago the majority of the court gutted that decision, said it wasn't necessary anymore, states would do the right thing, the time has come and gone. days, hours after that decision was made -- 5-4 decision -- you had attorneys general all over

this country, governors working overtime to figure out how they could suppress the vote, how they could make it easier on themselves to deny people of color, poor people, young people the right to vote. that was a supreme court decision. so if you're upset and you're wondering about how in america we have states trying to make it harder for people to vote when our voter turnout numbers are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, that was at that supreme court decision. i have zero doubt again that when it comes to protecting our democracy and the rights of people to vote that judge kavanaugh will be on the wrong side of that issue. today in america we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people. the affordable care act was an important step forward.

by a 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled that expanding medicaid in a state was optional, and we had many, many -- i think 17 states that said, nope, we're not going to expand medicaid. millions of low-income people, children were denied the health care that this congress voted to give them. i have zero doubt that mr. kavanaugh will continue that effort to make it impossible for us to guarantee health care to all of our people. the janus decision, attacking unions, a 5-4 decision. muslim travel ban, 5-4 decision. so i didn't mean to hear -- so i didn't need to hear about the issues of sexual assault in the beginning before it arose. i knew that this nominee would be highly partisan, and that was

only confirmed more strongly just a couple of weeks ago when he went before the judiciary committee again. so that is issue number one, and if any of you are out there who are now dealing with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, or other life-threatening illnesses, understand that republicans in a umin of states in this country -- in a number of states in this country are trying to get the united states supreme court to rule that major parts of the affordable care act are unconstitutional, including the protection of people who have preexisting conditions. so if you're struggling out there with diabetes, with cancer, heart disease, serious illness, worry and worry a lot about what mr. kavanaugh will do with the other four members of the hard right in taking away

your ability to get the health care you desperately need at an affordable cost. if you are a woman or, in fact, a man or, in fact, 71% -- 71 of 70% of the american people who believes that a woman has the right to control her own body and you don't want to see roe v. wade overturned -- and that is the last poll i saw, that some 70% of the american people holding that opinion worry and worry a lot. because i fear very much that if a case -- and we think a case may come before the supreme court on roe v. wade. worry about what kavanaugh will do with the other four right-wing members of the court. so that's issue number one.

if in fact brett kavanaugh was a choir boy, if in fact he was one of the most wonderful human beings ever to walk the face of this earth, based on his policies, based on his decisions, i would vote against him. but, mr. president, it turns out that maybe he has not been a choir boy. and i could only concur with my colleague from new jersey, senator booker in expressing what we are hearing in our own office. i come from a small state, mr. president, and yet, as a result of dr. ford's testimony, we have received comments from 11 vermonters who relayed to some degree their stories about sexual assault. we received a letter from a

woman who is 70 years old, who told us about a horrific experience that happened to her when she was 14 years of age. and while almost all of the comments came in were from women, there were some from men who were abused as boys. some 20% to 25% of women in this country have been sexually abused. that is a crisis. that is an epidemic. and, clearly, our goal must be to do everything we can to make it easier for women to come forward with these terribly, terribly painful and lifelasting experiences, make it easier for

them to speak their truth. and yet just the other day -- you know, it is hard to talk about president trump and continue to use the word "unbelievable" because things he does literally are unbelievable every other day. but i think maybe, maybe he might have hit a new low, even for trump. and that is dr. ford brought forth her testimony. i think the vast majority of the american people believed her. and the president of the united states, the man who should be telling women that we want to hear your truth, we want to hear your pain, this president, in the most vulgar way actual, actually mocked dr. ford. what kind of message does that send to women all across this country who are suffering?

it send the message that they will not be believed, they will be dismissed, and the most powerful person in this country will mock them. even for a disgraceful president like trump, this is in fact a new low. but, mr. president, it it is not even the policy that i am quite convinced that kavanaugh will pursue, it is not only the very serious and credible allegations regarding sexual assault that were in no way fully investigated by the f.b.i. -- i read the report and it was a very limited report; it certainly did not do justice to dr. ford; it did not even -- the f.b.i. agents did not even interview dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. now, i don't know how you have an investigation where you don't

interview the two major figures in that charge, the allegation. but it's not only the lingering question that came from two -- at least two -- credible women, but it is also the very important question of judge kavanaugh's veracity. his honesty. and i think i heard more than one republican member of this body saying, well, you know, if he is lying, he should not be seated to the united states supreme court. and yet there is in fact very strong evidence that the testimony that judge kavanaugh has made recently and in years past when he was first appointed to a judgeship was not honest.

let me just give you a few, a few examples of that. in his previous testimony before congress, before the judiciary committee, judge kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by republican staffers from judiciary committee democrats. republican staffers stole files, and that -- that was pretty clear. and the question that was asked of judge kavanaugh was in fact, had he seen those files? was he familiar with those files? and the answer that he gave was, no, he was not familiar with those files. well, it turned out that the e-mails released as part of these hearings showed that these

files were regularly shared with kavanaugh while he was on the white house staff. one of the e-mails, in fact, had the subject line "spying." in 200 6, judge kavanaugh told congress that he didn't know anything about the n.s.a. warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by "the new york times." this year an e-mail revealed that while at the white house, he might have been involved in some conversations about that program. sounds like he was not telling the truth. in 2004, judge kavanaugh testified that the nomination of william pryor to the 11th issue is cut was "not one i worked on personally." turns out, that might not have been true as well. 2006 judge kavanaugh testified, quote, i was not involved and am not involved in the questions

about the rules governing detention of combatants, end quote. new evidence released as part of these confirmation hearings suggests that that statement may not have been true. judge kavanaugh has repeatedly said that he did not have a serious drinking problem, that he never blacked out, never acted in a belligerent way. well, there are a number of his classmates who suggest otherwise. in fact, there was just a piece in "the washington post" today signed by three of his classmates, i believe at yale, who suggested the very opposite. are they lying? are these people coming forward into the public eye to be abused, in fact are they lying or is judge kavanaugh not telling the truth? judge kavanaugh testified that he treated women, quote, as friends and equals and, quote, with dignity and respect. well, numerous entries in his

school yearbook would seem to contradict this. the issue here is not just what he did. the issue is, he is not telling the truth about what he did. you know, judge kavanaugh is not the only person in america to drink a lot in high school and college. you know, not the only one. and if he had come forward and said, yep, did i have a drinking problem. i've overcome it but i did. that would have been perhaps telling the truth. but that's not what he said. and on it goes. so, mr. president, it is likely, as i understand it, that those of us who are opposed to judge kavanaugh will in fact be on the losing side of that vote tomorrow. and i'm very, very sorry about that. but history has a funny way of

responding to what goes on. and that is that i think this nomination to a much greater degree than i think anyone would have expected has aroused the american people from coast to coast. it has aroused them in terms of the issue of sexual assault and whether we deal with that issue honestly. it has aroused the american people in terms of the issue of veracity and whether or not we're going to have a member of the disowrt -- supreme court who in fact is honest. and it has aroused the american people in understanding that the function of the united states supreme court is to render justice without -- with impartiality, with justice for all, not to simply represent

the wealthy and the powerful and billionaire campaign contributors. so i think this whole process has been an enormous learning experience for the american people. and while we may lose tomorrow, i think that the end results of what has taken place here, the disgrace of what has taken place here will reverberate in a very positive way for the american people. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, as a united states senator and a member of the judiciary committee, giving careful consideration to supreme court nominations is among my most important responsibilities. these lifetime appointments can

change not only the course of the nation, but the course of lives. i began with deep concerns about judge kavanaugh, his unfettered views of executive power, effectively believing the president is beyond the law, his refusal to commit to well-established precedents on critical issues like women's constitutional rights regarding abortion. his affinity for unlimited and dark political money. and his studious blindness to its harms to our democracy. and his very selection and support by big special interest groups. and i had significant concerns about his truthfulness and temperament, concerns proven

more than justified over the course of these hearings. another warning sign was flashing. senate republicans were stopping at nothing to get this nominee through. why, it made me wonder. why? behind all the shattered norms and traditions of the senate, behind all the hidden documents and unanswered questions stands the looming question -- why? in my opening comments in the committee, i chronicled a pattern under chief justice roberts, an unpleasant pattern pattern, a 5-4 partisan rulings

for the big corporate and special interests that are the lifeblood of the republican party. not three or four times, not even a dozen or two dozen times times, but 73 times. 73 times. all 5-4 partisan decisions, all wins for the big corporate and special interests that are the lifeblood of the republican party. 73 times. the pattern is clear in these 5-4 partisan decisions. every time big corporate and republican special interests are involved, the big interest wins. every time.

73-0. on its way to delivering these republican special interest victories, the roberts court, or i should say the five of them that do this, call it the roberts five, leaves a trail, a trail of wrecked precedents, a trail of sketchy, nonfactual fact finding, a fact of longg standing statutes ignored or rewritten, and a trail of supposedly conservative judicial principles like modesty, deference, originalism, and stare decisis, all violated. the pattern, the pattern of these 73 partisan roberts five decisions explains why, explains why big republican

interests want kavanaugh on the court so badly and why republicans shredded so much senate precedent to shove him through. the big republican interests want to be able to pull 5-4 wins out of the united states supreme court as if it were a legislature they controlled. what are the areas of law where the big republican corporate and special interests have a stake where the roberts five delivered for those big republican party stakeholders? well, first, they helped republicans gerrymander elections. vief v.jubiler 5-4.

it let republicans have control of congress, control of the house of representatives in a year republicans lost by a million votes. they lost the house by a million votes and won it by gerrymander. the roberts five has helped republicans keep minority voters away from the polls. shelby county 5-4. bartlett v. strickland 5-4. abbott v. perez 5-4. making it harder to vote, harder for minorities or poor people or the elderly is a republican electioneering tactic, and republican state legislatures went right to work, right to work passing voter suppression laws right after these partisan decisions. the roberts five also helped

unleash big money political influence, giving big interests unlimited power to buy elections and threaten and bully congress. mccutcheon and bullock and the infamous grotesque 5-4 citizens united decision were their tools. this is the really big deal, by the way. there is a very small world of very big interests who have unlimited money to spend and a business strategy to spend it to influence politics. it's not a big group, but it's a powerful group and it's the heart of the republican funding machine. these few but big republican interests were given

unprecedented political artillery by the roberts five. at least unprecedented since teddy roosevelt cleaned house over a century ago. and our politics since citizens united has been contorted and corrupted. but those big influencers are oh so happy. what else do the big influencers want? to get out of courtrooms. big special interests that can muscle their way around congress and capture executive agencies hate courtrooms. there's this annoying thing in courtrooms of being treated equally with regular people. there's this annoying thing in courtrooms about having to turn over your actual documents. there's this really annoying

thing in courtrooms about having to tell the truth. so bingo, the roberts five protected corporations from group class action lawsuits. walmart v. duke, 5-4. comcast 5-4. epic systems, 5-4. and helped corporations steer customers and workers away from courtrooms and into corporate-friendly mandatory arbitration. concepcion, italian and rent-a-center all 5-4 at the hands of the roberts five. what else? to bust unions, a classic, kind of a golden oldie for big republican influencers.

harris b. quinn 5-4. and of course to protect polluters. big polluters pour big money into the republican party. they do this, they will tell you, to protect your freedom. they talk a lot about freedom. it turns out it's your freedom to breathe dirty air, drink dirty water, smell the river going by, eat chemicals with your food, and have climate havoc and acid oceans. it's all about freedom indeed. the freedom for big polluters to pollute for free and get away with it. and right with them there are the roberts five, over and over for the polluters, even stopping the nation's clean power plan 5-4 for the coal

industry. the list goes on. it totals 73 partisan 5-4 decisions under chief justice roberts, each giving big wins to big republican interests. it is an indelible pattern. and although the american people might not be keeping exact score, they might not know that the number is 73, but they feel that the court is rigged. and the court is flying all the warning flags of a captured agency dancing to special interest tunes and rampaging through precedent and principle to get there. this pattern is a disaster for the court, and i know kavanaugh

will contribute to that disaster. how do i know this? i know this because kavanaugh's record tells me. that's why he's the nominee, after all. that's the why. he's been signaling the big influencers, with over 50 speeches to the federalist society, i think he's got the human record for speeches to the federalist society signaling that he's their guy. and he's been signaling with his record. as a judge on the d.c. circuit of appeals in the most controversial and salient cases, those decided by bare 2-1 majorities when kavanaugh was in the majority with another republican-appointed judge, he voted to advance the far right and corporate interests, a

striking 91% of the time. that's almost a perfect match for the roberts five majority rulings in 5-4 cases where these conservative groups show up. roberts five gives conservative groups a 92% win rate. kavanaugh gives conservative groups a 91% win rate. no wonder he's their guy. 91%, remember that number. kavanaugh reliably voted for polluters and for dark money and for corporate interests with a healthy doll lop of anti-choice anti-choice, progun religious right politics thrown in. 91% is how he campaigned for this job. big special interests have a habit of turning up regularly in

appellate courtrooms like the d.c. circuit. their tool of influence is one of the worst policed tools of special interest influence in america, the so-called amicus brief. where big special interests fund front groups to file these amicus briefs to instruct courts how they want the courts to rule. they are called amicus briefs because you're supposedly appearing as a friend of the court, but this has nothing to do with friendship, it is a scandal of secrecy, deception, and manipulation. how does this involve kavanaugh? in cases where conservative groups weighed in with these amicus briefs before him, judge

kavanaugh sided with them, wait for it, 91% of the time. again, 91%. call him judge 91% and you understand why those big interests want him so badly on the supreme court and why the republican party drove like drunk kids over the curbs and across the lawns smashing mailboxes of procedure and propriety to get him there. the overlap between the groups and kavanaugh's 91% club, and the groups who fund leonard leo, the federalist society's architect of kavanaugh's nomination is telling. the multimillion dollar scorched

earth ad campaign by groups like the judicial crisis network is funded by big dark money interests. the n.r.a. poured its own millions into campaigning for kavanaugh. they promised n.r.a. members that kavanaugh will break the tie. they are 91% sure. in the face of all of this kavanaugh feigned impartiality, but then came the tell when kavanaugh returned to the judiciary committee to defend himself against accusations of a sex assault, his have a near -- veneer of impartiality was pulled away and we saw -- america saw the fierce and rabid conspiracy mongering partisan

within. his performance was recently described by a right of center columnist as his partisan, unhinged dia tribe and non -- diatribe and nonjudicial demeanor. i ask unanimous consent that the paper be appended to the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: he even blamed bill and hillary clinton. seriously. it shows where we are in this country that this display was not by itself disqualifying, but for the big special interests behind judge 91% this was not at all disqualifying, this was reassuring. this was great stuff. it just confirmed what they

knew, judge 91% would be their boy. the roberts five would get back in the saddle and they would get 43 more 5-4 partisan victories. it gave the rest to -- a man who asks the united states senate to grant him a lifetime seat in judgment of others and claims he will judge fairly. fat chance. one long-time observer of the judiciary who was an early supporter of kavanaugh recently withdrew his support. he wrote in "the atlantic" magazine, i cannot condone the partisanship which was raw, undisguised, naked, and con sitterrorral -- con spirittorral from one who acts as a judicial

actor. his performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary. extraordinarily even former supreme court justice stevens has warned against kavanaugh for the same reason. kavanaugh's raw, undisguised, naked and -- naked screed -- so in addition to an epic fail of any reasonable test of impartiality, judge kavanaugh still bears credible allegations of sexual assault levied against him. i will confess, i believe dr. blasey ford. we do have a big dispute here,

but i hope -- i hope that in this senate we at least agree on one thing. if dr. blasey ford's testimony was true, i hope we can all agree that kavanaugh has no business on the court. well, i believed her then and i believe her now. and i did not find him credible at all. i found him belligerent and aggressive just as his yale drinking body said he was when he was drunk in college and evasive and nonresponsive. dr. ford's allegations were credible enough to get her here before the senate. her testimony here was quiet, open, and powerful. she was calm. composed and utterly believable.

even president trump called her testimony credible and compelling. so did many of my republican colleagues. but then came the smear campaign to discredit and demean her led by the president's sickening taunts and mockery in mississippi. then came the majority leader's criticisms. he knew it wouldn't do to say out right she lied, but his every accusation fell to pieces if she was telling the truth. his attacks were a bank shot, a relentless, indirect bank shot smear of dr. ford's credibility. one element of the smear of dr. blasey ford was to describe her testimony as uncorroborated. we heard that over and over.

the majority leader said that again just this morning on the floor, uncorroborated. well, first, that just isn't true. prior consistent statements are a well-known form of corroboration, and dr. ford's prior consistent statements are abundant. and it is ironic to have republicans complain about a lack of corroboration when republicans did everything possible to prevent corroborating evidence from coming forward. it is deeply unfair to dr. ford to disallow, prevent, and freeze out corroborating evidence and then call her testimony uncorroborated, which brings us to the, to put it politely,

abridged f.b.i. investigation. first the f.b.i. background investigation was closed to this new evidence. in an unprecedented break from the entire history of background investigations many then the investigation was limited by secret orders from the white house we still have not seen. what do we see? we see the dozens of credible and corroborating witnesses who came forward to say they couldn't get an interview from the f.b.i., who were never contacted when they made themselves known to the f.b.i. i ask unanimous consent that two letters from the representatives of ms. ramirez and dr. ford explaining this be added at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. whitehouse: many witnesses were fob bed off into -- bobed off into a tip line, a tip line that was never pursued, a tip line that was a dumping ground for unwelcomed evidence. as united states attorney, had i received the set of witness summaries that we saw, i would have sent the package back for more investigation. a sincere an thorough investigation designed to get at the truth would have broadly interviewed kavanaugh and blasey ford's known contraries. they would have interviewed the witnesses who corroborated dr. blasey ford's prior consistent statements. an investigation designed to get at the truth would have testified kavanaugh's calendar and yearbook entries with

contrary witnesses, an investigation designed to get at the truth would have done interviews of witnesses who corroborate the incident alleged by ms. ramirez, like the classmate, and i quote, 100% sure he was told at the time that kavanaugh exposed himself to ramirez -- 100% sure. an investigation designed to get at the truth would have interviewed people who recalled kavanaugh's propensity to drink to excess and his behavior when drunk relevant to these incidents. an investigation designed to get at the truth would have certainly sought toll investigate dr. christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh. from public reporting we know that none of this happened. it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, like everything

else in this nomination, like hiding 90% of the records from the bush white house days, like putting bogus executive privilege over other documents, like claiming other documents were not confidential, like everything else, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this investigation was designed not to get at the truth but to step carefully around it. i am a huge fan of the f.b.i. i admire that organization immensely, and it must have killed the agents to do such a half-baked and incomplete job because of marching orders from the white house. my heart goes out to the experienced f.b.i. professionals hamstrung by the trump white house through this investigation. they know better than anyone the

holes in what they did. but in this matter they don't have the independence of a criminal investigation. the white house is the client. they must do what they are told. this was yet another trump abuse of a proud american institution. so here we are, a defendant in a criminal prosecution enjoys a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. a defendant in a civil trial must be found culpable by a preponderance of the evidence. an executive agency must make decisions based on substantial evidence. but the question before us is none of those. the question before us is whether brett kavanaugh is a man with the character, credibility,

impartiality and temperament to sit in judgment on america's highest court. we now know brett kavanaugh is not that. he is not close, and americans know it. but the big republican interest groups don't care because they see that 91% and they yearn for 73 more 5-4 partisan victories. service to the law has at its heart an ernest pursuit of the truth. in kavanaugh's pursuit of office truth too often has not been his goal but his casualty. the history of falsehood is well documented. denying that he knew of documents stolen from judiciary democrats when he was at the

bush white house, denying that he was involved with the secret detention program or the controversial warrantless wiretapping program, denying what he himself said about presidential immunity from investigation, and complicit in the coverup of millions of documents reshould have seen and on and on -- we sh -- we should have seen and on and on. once dr. blasey ford and ms. ramirez came forward with sex allegations the lies came fast that he knew nothing about the ramirez allegations in the new yorker story was published, he had no alcohol problem and never drank to the impairment of his memories, that he had unique parlance related to binge drinking and sex, that he always treated women with dignity and respect and that claiming himself as a girls alum

nius was a sign of affection. as the woman herself retorted there is nothing affectionate or respectful in bragging about making sexual conquests that never happened. end quote. on they came, little lies and big lies about not having connections to get into yale, about honoring grand jury secrecy while helping the ken starr investigation. none perhaps individually fatal, but together adding up to a pattern of dissembling and prevarication. even before kavanaugh was nominated, leader mcconnell smelled trouble and urged the president not to nominate someone he knew was a badly flawed nominee with a lengthy paper trail that would likely disclose how extreme and partisan judge kavanaugh truly is. so much has been left by the wayside in the mad rush to jam

this nomination through. documents, facts, senate rules and traditions, real investigation, simple respect for truth, all smashed up wreckage in the wake of this nomination. but as my fellow new englander john adams said, facts are stubborn things. the truth has a way of coming out. the millions of hidden pages of kavanaugh's white house records will come out. the nonassertion assertions of executive privilege will fall or yield to time. the unheard witnesses will ultimately be heard. , and others may come forward. which brings me back to that question i began with -- why all the wreckage? why all the rush?

why all the damage? why all the violation? the answer is in the numbers. 5-4, 73, and 91%. at the end of the day we go back to a supreme court far too often dancing to the tune of a hand full of big republican special interests. the record of this, the pattern of this is undeniable. and as i said, it will be a disaster for the court, and kavanaugh will eagerly contribute to that disaster. this whole mess has been a dark episode for the united states senate, for the supreme court, for our image around the world, for our democracy. but there is one bright jewel

that can be picked from the midst of all the filth and wreckage and lies. that is there's something very special happening out there. the testimony of dr. christine blasey ford of her assault at the hands of brett kavanaugh, though studiously ignored by so many republicans and mocked by the president of the united states, has lit a fire. just in my small state of rhode island, at least ten women have written to me to share their own personal stories of survival of sexual assault. like all of us, i get mail every day about various policies

that are being debated here in the senate. i'm coming up on 12 years. i've never, never had mail like this. these women have come forward from widely different ages and backgrounds, college students and grandmothers, to tell their stories. some had held these secrets close for years, even for decades. several of these women gave me permission to share their words, words they have allowed me to free here on the senate floor after years, years of silence. what a privilege it is. what an honor for me to be trusted in this way by these remarkable women.

some were moved to tell their stories because they see their own fears reflected in dr. blasey ford's brave testimony. the fear of not being believed, the fear of losing the respect of family or of friends. but they knew that dr. blasey ford's memories were real, and they told me they wanted me to trust that dr. blasey ford's memories were real because they knew that their own memories were real, because their own memories of their assault were seared into their minds. one told me, i am dr. ford. a woman wrote to me, i'm sure

my rapist hasn't thought of me since that night 21 years ago either. in fact, he, like kavanaugh, would likely deny anything had ever happened, but here's the thing about rape. the victims never forget. the coverage of dr. blasey ford's appearance before the senate for some stirred deep and disquieting emotions. one woman wrote, the past few weeks have been doubly difficult. with dr. ford coming forward and all of the constant news threads and social media threads, i have been triggered with nightmares, fear of being alone, and emotionally wrecked. ptsd and triggers are real. no matter how much therapy and time goes by, one small

statement or physical interaction can trigger someone who has experienced a traumatic assault. one letter read, as a rape survivor, i was 19 years old. i am now 66 years old. i want you to know that that experience does color the rest of a person's life. informing decisions that you make, where and how you go somewhere, how you raise your children and relate to your husband and all other people. sometimes through the decades you think about it consciously and on purpose. and sometimes outside events can bring it back without your willing it to be so.

dr. blasey ford's quietly compelling testimony has forced our nation to face up to tough questions about how women have been treated. the redemption, if there is one, for this foul nomination process is for us to grasp the power of this moment, for our country to act on the power of this moment. this is about far more than a troubled and troubling nominee. something big is happening. women across the country, like these extraordinary women in rhode island, are reconciling with their truth, fighting through a long and deeply unfair

legacy of shame and fear and stigma, and they're stepping up. they're coming forward determined, as one wrote to me, to leave a different world for their daughters and granddaughters than the world that silenced them for years, for decades. for me, mr. president, it is a true personal honor to share this moment with them, to be trusted with these long held stories, to have the chance to help end that bitterly unfair legacy and to support them toward that new and better world

for their daughters and granddaughters. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, first i want to congratulate and thank the senator from rhode island for his moving and eloquent remarks, so moving and eloquent in fact that i've contemplated foregoing my own. the senator expressed the feelings of many of us particularly which was very powerful and i think very well encapsulated the one possible positive result from this sorry process. mr. president, i stated my opposition to brett kavanaugh's

appointment to the united states supreme court before dr. ford's allegations became public, before i had ever heard about them, before anyone had heard about them as far as i know except some members of the judiciary committee. therefore, i don't believe you have to believe dr. ford to conclude that judge kavanaugh should not be elevated to the supreme court. first, because of his judicial philosophy. if you'll hash done me, i want to -- if you'll pardon me, i want to digress for a moment into constitutional history, preconstitutional history, if you will. there is a basic paradox of government. we give power to something called the government in order to protect our security, to protect us as individuals, to protect our liberty. the paradox is that we then have to worry about the government to

which we've given the power abusing us. james madison captured this in the 51st federalist, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men -- and of course today madison would say men and women over men and women -- in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself. the romans put it this way, custodios ipso, who will guard the gardens.

the other philosopher who talked about this was the philosopher lord acton. all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the answer to this ancient question of any government ever formed by people on this earth. it based -- it's based upon a profound understanding of human nature that if you give people power, there's a potential for it to be abused. not the potential, the likelihood that it will be abused. so the constitution isn't an elaborate scheme for preventing that abuse. the first line of defense is the structure of the government itself. what madison was talking about, obliging the government to control itself. this herky jerky complicated rube goldberg device involving two houses, checks and balances, the president, the veto, submitting treaties,

two-thirds votes, advice and consent, and then the whole level of the state government and local government and the division of responsibilities between the government, enumerated powers, the framers wanted it to be difficult for majorities to ride roughshod over minorities. they wanted it to be difficult to legislate and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. it is a very difficult piece of machinery to bring into action. but even after the framers had designed this elaborate structure specifically in the name of protecting the rights of the people, they weren't -- they weren't satisfied. they wanted to take another step because going back to our other fundamental document, the declaration of independence, which talks about certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. and that word inalienable is not defined much, there's not much attention paid to it, it means you can never be given away or have it taken from you. that's what inalienable rights mean. so going back to that, they said we've got this elaborate structure that will be complicated to operate, but what if the majority makes this structure work in such a way that is aanymore cal to the fundamental rights to people. so the first thing they did was adopt the bill of rights. the bill of rights is the second shield for us as individuals. i always thought of it as a force field around individuals that protects the basic rights even if the government follows all the procedures. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, establishing religion, or controlling the free exercise

thereof. search and seizure must be reasonable. you don't have to give testimony against yourself. all of these rights in the bill of rights are designed to protect us as individuals from the government. now, the framers then had an interesting problem when they got to the bill of rights and they listed the rights, somebody, and i can't remember who it was right now, came up with the problem that if you list the rights, then people will later say, those rights are listed, therefore there aren't any other rights that can be protected, so they added the ninth amendment which is one of the most unappreciated and undiscussed in the constitution. the ninth amendment says the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage rights

that pertain to the people. in other words, there are rights that exist, they recognize that, that aren't the ones that are listed in the first through the fifth amendment, rights such as freedom of speech, the press, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to bear arms. they were afraid they would exclude, so they passed the ninth amendment. what does this have to do with judge kavanaugh? to understand judge kavanaugh jurisprudence, what kind of judge he will be -- by the way, that's what we're all doing here. this is an exercise in forecasting the future. what will this person decide? what kind of judge will they be? and that involves things like demeanor and temperament, but it also involves judicial philosophy. to understand the philosophy of judge kavanaugh, you have to understand the judicial philosophy of justice william

rehnquist. judge kavanaugh has characterized justice rehnquist as his judicial hero. he gave a speech about him in 2017. he says the article in the texas law review written by justice rehnquist is one of the most important legal documents ever written. so what does justice rehnquist and justice kavanaugh have in common? they have a very expansive view of what states can do to limit your rights and a narrow view of what the federal government can do to protect your health, welfare, the environment, you name it. justice rehnquist voted against roe v. wade. justice rehnquist criticized grace griswald versus

connecticut. he voted against roe v. wade that does not enumerate the right of a woman to protect her reproductive health is not enumerated. but the court found it was a basic human right of women, and that's the basis of roe v. wade. the problem with justice rehnquist's approach and judge kavanaugh's approach to unenumerated rights is -- they say that unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the nation's history and tradition. that's called originalism or a piece of originalism. in other words, you can't assert a right unless you can show that the framers thought about it when they passed the amendments or that it was somehow rooted in the tradition, and if abortion was legal across the country in

1897 or 1867 or 1787, then it wouldn't -- you couldn't do it. the court would be making law. the problem is that approach freezes rights in history, and it allows no room for the evolution of ethics and morality. a good example is loving v. virginia which was the case that overturned laws which made it illegal in many states in the country, including virginia at the time -- and this was in the 1960's -- made it illegal for people of different races to marry one another. now it's hard to argue using the kavanaugh philosophy that is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority because certainly at the time of the passage of the bill of rights and the passage

of the amendment these laws were all over the place. so rehnquist and kavanaugh would say you can't do that. and this isn't judicial lawmaking, this is judicial protection of individual rights from state incursion. griswald v. connecticut. in many ways griswald and some of the later cases -- griswald cass the case that said that the state of connecticut could not prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. it has been widely criticized. in many ways the griswald case was in reaction to griswald and the following cases that the federalist society arose in the 1980's. so this philosophy is that the states have wide latitude to restrict these rights,

enumerated or not, and that's why i believe there is, i don't know, 50/50 chance, 60/40, 70/30, that a justice kavanaugh would reverse roe v. wade. i give it 99% that he will gut roe v. wade. there are cases -- there are something like 15 cases headed for the supreme court right now from various states around the country where the right of a woman to control her reproductive future is under assault and the decisions may not be an outright repeal, but by piecemeal chipping away at that right, making it harder and harder to exercise, roe v. wade will be a hollow shell.

now, judge kavanaugh said in his hearing, i'm not going to make these value judgments, ideological judgments, i'm going to call balls and strikes like an umpire. mr. president, i have a new principle for judging supreme court nominees, anybody who says they are going to judge by calling balls and strikes is an automatic no because they are conning us. deciding whether a particular rule in a state which restricts the ability of a woman to control her reproductive future is unduly burdensome is not a mechanical ball and strike, it's a value laden judgment call. so don't tell me that there's some easy ball and strike thing here. you're making judgment calls based upon values. and i don't have any doubt that a justice kavanaugh is going to

vote to restrict, to control, to limit, and ultimately to gut roe v. wade. indeed, that's for the -- that's what the president said he was going to do was appoint a justice who would take that step. that's why he is so widely supported in some parts of the country. he said it's a precedent, roe v. wade is a precedent. that's like saying this is a chair. that's a statement of fact. that's not a value. that's not a philosophy. that's just a statement of fact. then he says, well, we have planned parenthood v. casey. so we have a precedent on a precedent. that's like saying this is a chair and that this is a -- and this is a desk. that is a statement of fact. that doesn't give you an indication of what he says he is going to do. by the way, justice gorsuch sat in my office and talked to me about precedent and how committed he was about

precedent. he had written a whole book about precedent and i don't think he was on the court for a year an voted in the janice case -- and voted in the janice case to trample on that. when someone says they set a precedent, that is not a predictor of what they will do. he has an expansive view of the state power to restrict individual rights. he has a narrow view of the national legislator's ability to protect individuals, whether it's health care. i'll give you 75% that he's going to start voting to undercut and destroy the affordable care act. on the environment, in 16 out of 18 cases on the environment that came before his court, the d.c. court of appeals, 16 out of 18

he voted with the polluters. narrowed the authority of the environment protection agency. in one case particularly relevant to my state, he voted against -- he decided against the right of the e.p.a. to tell upwind states that they had to control their pollution in order to benefit downwind states. maine is in the pail pipe of the northeast. all the air moves from west to east and ends up in maine. we could shut off every automobile and every factory in maine and still have air pollution problems. so telling the e.p.a. they can't regulate air that moves across statelines is a direct shot at the state of maine. campaign finance reform. i predict he'll join with the 5-4 majority to continue the deregulation of campaign

finance. one of the most serious issues facing this country. he even said that net neutrality was unconstitutional because of the right of large internet service providers to have free press -- free speech. that's a case that would deny free speech and freedom of activity to millions of internet users across the country. you don't have to believe dr. ford to oppose and believe that brett kavanaugh should not be elevated to the supreme court. you also don't have to believe dr. ford to believe that brett kavanaugh should not be elevated to the supreme court because of his views on presidential power. not necessarily his views on presidential power, but first let's establish what he said. in the minnesota law review he

said, we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. he has an elaborate argument about that involving impeachment and the congress should pass a statute and a whole lot of things. we can argue about that. they are legitimate disputes about the meaning of -- of article 3 and how it relates to impeachment and how it relates to the subject -- the president being subject to criminal prosecutions. i understand that. i understand we can have those arguments. but once he stated that position, he should have announced that he would recuse himself from any case involving the president who appointed him. the first rule of the judicial cannons -- cannon number two is a judge shall avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety -- the appearance of impropriety and 2a, this is

the code of judicial responsibility, a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence and the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. let me read that again. a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. the reason for that is obvious. the judiciary doesn't have the power of the purse, it doesn't have an army, it has to rest on public confidence. he already violated that principle in his testimony to the judiciary committee last week. he violated that principle. imagine the reaction of the public if a newly minted justice kavanaugh within the next couple of years votes in favor, indeed could provide the deciding vote,

the swing vote, on a case involving the president who appointed him. i'm not saying he can't take this position ever in his judicial career but to have not recused himself and he had an opportunity to do so, to announce he would do so to me is disqualifying. it's obvious and mandatory that he should not take a position on a case coming before the court involving the president who appointed him. number three, we don't have to believe dr. ford to conclude that judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed to a lifetime job because we've been denied the ability to learn about his record. imagine, mr. president, you're doing a job interview for a very important job in your company, and a guy comes in and says, i'd like this job and i'm going to show you 10% of my work product and the 10% take i'm going to

give you is going to be picked out by an old buddy of mine that i used to work for. in fact, he used to work for me. by the way, once you hire me, you can never fire me. i'm there for life. nobody would take that deal. any employer in america would laugh at that job applicant and yet that's exactly what we're doing here this week. we've seen 10% of his record in the white house and given no reason whatsoever why we can't see it all. and people talk about oh, we've seen a hundred thousand pages or 200,000 pains. that's -- pages. that's not the point. he has a huge record so the number of pages isn't the issue. it's how much of it have we seen as a percentage, and we've seen 10% of it. if i were in the -- on the side of this case preparing to vote for this gentleman, i'd be terrified about what's going to come out.

because it's all going to come out. the records of the bush administration are going to be available in 2020 under the presidential reports act, 12 years from the end of the administration, 2020 all these records are going to come out. in fact, i think they're going to start coming out the next couple of weeks from the national archives. i don't know what's in those records. there may be nothing. but the fact that they're being with withheld -- being withheld raises my main suspicions. are they worried that something's in there that will derail this nomination or do they know it? and for asking us to vote on this lifetime appointment with no do overs, no amendments, no chances, no repeals when we haven't seen the entire record is just -- it's beyond me. there's no justification for it. as i say, if i were inclined --

even if i was inclined to vote yes, i would say wait a minute, you can't ask me to vote for this until i see all his record, and we haven't done it. it's ridiculous. there just -- there's no other word for it. number four, we don't have to believe dr. ford to conclude that judge kavanaugh should not be elevated to the supreme court because he has demonstrated that he lacks the temperament and demeanor to be a justice of the supreme court. now, first i think it's only fair to state the standard. what should the standard for temperament and demeanor for a judge be? here's the standard as i have seen it. to be a good judge and a good umpire, it's important to have the proper demeanor, really important i think to walk in the other shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges, to understand them, to keep our

emotions in check. to keep our emotions in check. to be calm amidst the storm on the bench to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk. to show -- this isn't me. this is the standard published. to show and help display that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. who established that standard? who wrote it? brett kavanaugh. those are his words in a speech several years ago at catholic university. proper demeanor, calm amidst the storm, on the bench, don't be a jerk. help display -- you're trying to make decisions dispassionately based on the law and not your

emotion. i don't know how anyone with a straight face can say brett kavanaugh met that standard last thursday afternoon. i had an interesting experience that day. i was in a hearing in the afternoon while he was speaking, and there was a television screen in the hearing room but the sound was off because we were doing other committee work. but every now and then you could look at the screen. i could see him. and i turned to the person sitting behind me and said, he's coming unhinged. what's going o. what's he saying? he's shouting. you can see it. you could see his face contorted. then i saw what he was saying. no one could argue that he demonstrated judicial demeanor in that hearing. and in fact, something like 3 now law pro-- 3,000 law professors, including 40 from yale have already come out and said based on that performance, he should not be confirmed to the supreme court. justice steven, john paul stevens, retired justice,

extraordinary moment said this man should not be confirmed for the supreme court. if you were from mars, mr. president, or from south dakota, and you knew nothing about the history of this matter, you do nothing about the documents, the opinions, the philosophy, none of those things. you do nothing about those things. all you saw was that hearing that afternoon, you'd say this guy has no business anywhere near a courtroom. now, his defense is, i was angry. i was being charged with something. my family was being threatened and i'm being threatened. and i understand that. you know, all of us have thought about how we would feel if some unjust or untrue charge was made against us, whatever the nature, and a particular heinous charge was made against him.

i understand take he was passionate. but here's what really bothers me. what he said, what he said, the conspiracy, the direct insults to the democratic senators, the idea that he was a victim of a smear and a smear campaign, he'd written down. that wasn't a spontaneous outburst that he was so mad and caught up in the moment and said something he regretted. it was in his written testimony. he'd written it down. his answers to the questions. back to canon number two, avoid anything that would undermine confidence in the judiciary. he actually said looking at the democrats what goes around comes

around. everybody knows that's a threat. and he's looking at richard blumenthal who's the. the presiding officer: in a case called -- who's the plan tif in a case and will eventually make its way to the supreme court based on the emollients clause. how could richard blumenthal possibly believe he could get a fair and impartial hearing from somebody who said what goes around comes around. that phrase itself should be disqualifying. mr. king: anybody who talks about a political party or a group of people or millions of people or anybody else and says what goes around comes around, that's disqualifying. so i think based upon judicial philosophy, his failure to recuse himself from issues involving the president who appointed him, his refusal to say that he will recuse himself

in issues involving the president who appointed him, the incredible lack of documentation based upon his record and his demeanor last week disqualifies him. no, mr. president, you don't have to believe dr. ford to conclude as i have that judge kavanaugh should not be elevated to the supreme court. but, mr. president, before i close, i should add one note. i do believe dr. ford. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: thank you, mr. president. as i begin speaking tonight, we're less than 24 hours away from handing a seat on the

supreme court to a man credibly accused of sexually assault. a lifetime appointment that would give him immense power to determine the right of every american to access health care, to start or grow a family, or even have access to what the founders called the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. from the beginning this nomination process has been a sham. the confirmation hearing was rushed. bush and trump era republicans worked shoulder to shoulder to ensure thousands of documents never saw the light of day. questions of a kavanaugh seeming to have perjured himself only grew day by day. and that was all before dr. christine blasey ford stood up and spoke out, before she took a deep breath and began to relive the worst moment of her life over and over again on the national stage.

credibly accusing brett kavanaugh of pinning her down, covering her mouth, and changing her life forever. now even after she's testified about the night she was nearly raped, even after she talked of the memories indellably etched into her mind and her 100% certainty that it was brett kavanaugh that night, some on the other side of the aisle have prioritized partisan tribalism over justice, over truth. two of the pillars that supposedly define our supreme court. how can the f.b.i. investigation be considered anything but a g.o.p.-led sham when dr. ford wasn't even interviewed? when mr. kavanaugh himself wasn't even questioned or the dozen-plus people dr. ford and debra ramirez have said could have helped collaborate their stories? why the rush? what are the republicans afraid of? if they're so convinced their nominee isn't a serial sexual

assaulter, why have they done everything in their power to curb investigations into the incidents in question? the republicans who angrily claimed on tv yesterday that this nomination is taking too long are literally the same people who delayed the consideration of merrick garland's nomination for 293 days simply because he was nominated by president obama. for the chairman to claim this nomination has gone on longer than the, quote, average supreme court nomination ignores the reality that their nominee who has been credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults is being jammed through at lightning speed compared to the only other nomination he has overseen as chairman merrick garland. to leader mcconnell, chairman grassley, and my republican colleagues, i warn you, history has its eyes on you and i beg

you to slow down and consider the stakes at this debate. like neil gorsuch just a year ago, there are countless other conservatives scattered throughout the federal judiciary that could be confirmed instead of judge kavanaugh. poe tefntion nominee -- potential nominees with zero credible allegations of sexual assault, who will release their records who are able to demonstrate the careful temperament we should demand from any possible supreme court justice. as a nominee, kavanaugh brought his confirmation hearings two things, his record and his character. his record revealed that he would eagerly be the deciding vote in cases that would take away a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, tear away health care for millions of americans with preexisting conditions, and even empower this president to act as though he's above the law.

equally important, his character can be summed up in just a few words. untruthful, dishonest, intemperament, unfit to serve. anyone who watched the judiciary committee hearing last thursday should have serious if not disqualifying doubts about brett kavanaugh. he spewed out conspiracy theories about the clintons, went on partisan rants, appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would keep him from getting what he is entitled to. he shouted over senators, attacked and insulted them personally, even planning to exact revenge on his political adversaries. only a man who never served in harm's way would dare complain that tough questioning equivalent to his enemy trying to, and i quote, trying to blow

him up. judge kavanaugh i have been on the receiving end of an r.j. blast, so i can tell you sitting in a hearing room with a nice glass of water is nothing like fearing for our your life in the middle of a war zone. and over and over again he told what seemed to be lies. he lied about the meaning of his yearbook page, about whether or not he had any possible memory -- any memory loss or has ever become aggressive while drinking, about what he knew at age 53 and what he did at age 17. sadly, we shouldn't even be surprised. kavanaugh has a habit of appearing to lie under oath. over the years he's disassembled -- he disassembled and been unhonest under oath on a number of issues including the

bush administration's policy on torture, this disregard and distaste for the truth should be disqualifying for any supreme court nominee, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are turning a blind eye, seemingly not bored one bit -- bothered by his dishonesty, much less the sexual assault claims against him. today is the one-year anniversary of "the new yorker" harvey weinstein story that opened up the me too movement. and now we in the senate are faced with a choice, do we believe the survivor who come forward with their stories or would we rather take the easy route and describing their climbs as -- claims as mixed up or as one colleague put it, ignoring their claims, ignoring

their pain? i for one believe dr. ford and dr. ramirez. courage is what comes to mind when i think of these women. they didn't ask for this burden. they did not want spotlight or the death threats or fear that has come along with it. they put country before self and have spoken out anyway knowing full well that some would vilify them for doing so. take a moment to imagine what they've gone through. imagine being a teenaged girl alone and scared, out numbered and overpowered and terrified. imagine caring that trauma with you every day for decades and then having to relive it in front of the entire country and then being called a liar, having your life threatened, being victimized all over again in the process. it now rests on the united states senate to listen. we must set an example for the rest of the country an avoid

repeating the sins of confirmations past. we must condemn efforts to shame survivors, even when -- especially when it's the president himself doing the bullying. by refusing to confirm brett kavanaugh, we can send a message that victims of sexual assault matter, that their voices will be heard, that seeking justice for these survivors is more important than the confirmation of any single individual. we can recognize the bravery it took for these women to speak out. doing so would make clear that at least in the united states senate, if not in the white house, time is truly up for any judicial nominee creditably accused with sexual assault. and doing so would bring integrity to how the senate carries out its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent. to any of my colleagues

considering voting yes, take a few moments to listen to the opening words of dr. ford last thursday. hear the pain in her words, the truth in her voice. i will be voting no on judge kavanaugh's confirmation. and on behalf of dr. ford and survivors everywhere, i am begging -- begging each of my colleagues to do the same. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i rise to join senator duckworth and senator king and so many of my colleagues in opposing judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. mr. president, one of the most solemn responsibilities of the -- of a united states senator is providing advice and consent upon a president

nominating an individual to the supreme court. this is a duty and a decision that i do not take lightly. this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land which will impact the lives of every single person in this country. supreme court justice is not a position that any person is entitled to. any individual nominated to the court must be subject to scrutiny on the totality of their record, their temperament, and their past actions. yet, throughout the process of this nomination, my colleagues in the majority have made clear that they will stop at nothing to get judge kavanaugh on the court no matter his record, no matter his temperament, no matter his character. mr. president, when

dr. christine blasey ford serious and credible allegations came to light, we saw a truly disturbing scene from both judge kavanaugh and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. judge kavanaugh himself lashed out claiming a political conspiracy against him, refusing to answer questions and seemingly threatening those who raised serious, good-faith questions about his fitness. he said those words, quote, what goes around comes around. his behavior and his words reflected a partisan who sees those with whom he differs as enemies, not opponents. and while many of my colleagues in the majority praised dr. ford's bravery in sharing her story and even agreed that her testimony was credible, they

blocked any serious professional attempt to get to the facts. and, mr. president, i want to take a minute here to address one of the most disingenuous claims i have heard from the majority when it talks about dr. blasey ford. over the last week members on the other side of the aisle have expressed concern and regret that dr. blasey ford's letter outlining her allegations were leaked forcing her story into public view. but the fact that dr. blasey ford didn't choose when and if to reveal her allegation to the public, does not relieve the united states senate of its duty to pursue the truth or to treat dr. blasey ford with the respect and compassion the majority says it feels for her. something it could simply demonstrate by aseeding to her

request for what normally happens after sexual assault, a full investigation before the hearing. and i too will note that i watched and listened to dr. blasey ford's testimony. i considered the additional evidence that would have particular weight in a court of law of her corroborating statements well prior to any suggestion that brett kavanaugh would ever be nominated to the supreme court of the united states. and i compared her testimony to that of judge kavanaugh and i believe dr. blasey ford. but even though the committee rejected the doctor's request for an investigation prior to the hearing, which would have

been normal course, which would have produced much more meaningful and insightful and fact-based hearing, i was hopeful, mr. president, when it was announced last week that the nomination process would be paused for the f.b.i. to investigate dr. blasey ford's allegations. i was so hopeful that there would be a thorough, intensive process in order to get to the truth. but after reading the f.b.i. report that was presented to senators, it is clear that the f.b.i. was not allowed to conduct a serious investigation. i'm an attorney, and i have to say that any good attorney allowed to read the f.b.i.'s supplemental background investigation, what we've been calling the report here, would

tell you that it is not the type of comprehensive investigation that could lead to the truth. the limited scope of the investigation produced a sham. and let me be clear, nothing in the f.b.i. report exonerated judge kavanaugh. it wasn't comprehensive enough to prove or disprove dr. blasey ford's allegations or judge kavanaugh's denials. it was clearly designed just to provide cover so that the majority could vote yes and jam this nomination through. but even before dr. ford bravely stepped forward with her allegations of sexual assault, i had concluded that judge kavanaugh's nomination should not go forward, that judge kavanaugh did not belong on the supreme court of the united

states. having reviewed his record and hearing his testimony before the senate judiciary committee, it is evident that he does not have the impartiality that is required to serve on the supreme court. his record shows that he is a partisan who promotes a partisan right wing ideology deeply at odds with the will of the american people. on issue after jich, judge kavanaugh -- issue, judge has promoted an ideology that diminishes the rights of individuals, particularly women, and puts corporations before people. on health care, judge kavanaugh's agenda has been clear. as recently as october 2017, judge kavanaugh criticized chief justice roberts' decision to uphold the affordable care act. in his hearing, judge kavanaugh

would not commit to upholding protections for people who have preexisting conditions such as asthma, cancer, diabetes, and more. the trump administration and the majority in congress have been relentless in their attempts to sabotage our health care system, underscoring the need to have a supreme court that would rise above partisanship. but judge kavanaugh will not do that. on the issue of reproductive rights and a woman's right to chart her own destiny, judge kavanaugh has repeatedly tried to dodge and mislead, but none of his judicial opinions or comments indicate that he believes roe v. wade was rightly decided or that he would respect rowe's -- roe's precedent if he had the opportunity to do so. with judge kavanaugh on the bench, roe and the personal economic and reproductive freedom that it has delivered to women is directly threatened.

and when it comes toll checks and -- comes to checks and balances on the president's power, judge kavanaugh's opinions are extremely concerning, particularly given that a clear pattern of criminallality continues to emerge from the mueller investigation. judge kavanaugh has a history of supporting an unchecked presidency. he has written that presidents should be essentially above the law by claiming that they should not be the subject of civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, or even criminal investigations. and during his hearing judge kavanaugh refused to commit to recusing himself from matters involving investigations of the very president who nominated him, especially at a time like this, it is too dangerous to place a justice on the supreme court who believes in virtually no checks on a president's power. but it appears that the majority

is committed to doing just that. mr. president, this nomination has been an outrage. and the way it has been handled is a failure of this institution. the majority has put the interest of its party in a nominee who has made clear he will serve those interests before the interests of the court and the country. the nominee who will apparently given today's developments be confirmed tomorrow is without the character or temperament needed to serve on the supreme court without the credibility that the american people deserve. he is in fact the antithesis of

that impartial arbiter that a supreme court justice has to be. the people of new hampshire deserve better. the people of the united states of america deserve better. and that is why, mr. president, i will be voting no on brett kavanaugh's nomination tomorrow, and i would urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. thank you and i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i come before this body this evening after having heard several remarks from a number of my distinguished colleagues whom i like, whom i respect, whom i admire, with whom i greatly and substantially disagree on many matters discussed tonight. just in the last little while i've heard arguments presented first by the senator from maine, a good friend of mine, who made some arguments that he put into roughly four categories that he

opposes judge kavanaugh on the basis of judicial philosophy, on the basis of his refusal to agree an advertise pa torely to certain types of recusals, to the absence of documentation. he claims was available to the committee. and to judge kavanaugh on issues of demeanor. i'd like to address each of these allegations in turn. first with regard to judicial philosophy, my friend from maine who truly is a friend explained that in his view judge kavanaugh was unacceptable because among other things he counts among those he admires, the judicial role models, the late william rhenquist, chief justice of the united states. and the reason why that is apparently a bad thing, according to my colleague from maine, is that this somehow

indicates that he would view himself sort of like an umpire calling the balls and the strikes. reading the law on the basis of what it says rather than on the basis of what he or anyone else might wish were the law. jurists, you see, mr. president, are not philosopher kings, not even when they get on the supreme court of the united states. they're not there to impose will but judgment. you see, as alexander hamilton explained in federalist 78, there is a difference between the type of government activity that goes on in the judiciary and the type of government activity that goes on in the legislative branch. in the judiciary they exercise judgment, that is, they read the law. they figure out what the law says. when two or more parties come before the court's proper jurisdiction, they interpret the law on the basis of what the law says. that hamilton explains is judgment. will on the other hand is deciding what the law should say, what policies are best for

the united states government. that's the prerogative of this branch. that's the prerogative of the political arms of the federal government. that is not the prerogative of our friends across the street who wear black robes. and so i was surprised to hear that my colleague from maine, the junior senator from maine, senator king, was saying that he objects to the judicial philosophy of judge kavanaugh on the basis that he says he would call the balls and strikes as he sees them. it seems to me, mr. president, that this is the essence of what federalist 78 was talking about, about the difference between will and judgment. and hamilton explained that ever the judiciary started exercise will instead of judgment, it would upend the entire constitutional order. that we cannot have. that is not how it should be. next, my colleague from maine went on to explain that judge

kavanaugh's association with the federalist society was somehow a problem, that the federalist society is somehow some sort of demonic conspiracy to overthrow the united states government or something to that effect. i embellish slightly, his characterization of it. but you would think from what some of my colleagues is a i about the federalist society that there's something terribly wrong about it. let me tell you about the federalist society. i've been aware of the federalist society for now most of my life. i attended my first federalist society event while i was still in high school. what teenager doesn't want to attend a federalist society event at a nearby law school? it was something that we considered a lot of fun in provo, utah. at every federalist society event that i've ever attended starting when i was in high school all the way through college, through law school, throughout my career as an attorney and since then in my career in politics, one thing

has been consistent. the federal ition society when it put -- federalist society when it it puts on an event allows for all sides to be represented. you see, views that are widely die vary gent -- divergent. you have the former president of the civil liberties union who has participated in the symposium, this, you see, mr. president, makes the federalist society rather unlike most american law school experiences wherein on one side is presented, not both. the federalist society prides itself in focusing on open, robust, honest debate. so if some people want to criticize the federalist society or those who heaven forbid have before attended a federalist society event, what they're doing is criticizing academic freedom, criticizing a robust discussion of law and public policy. we should all be grateful for the federalist society, for law

and public policy studies. this is an enterprise that really represents the core of what the american people should value, certainly what those who study and admire and respect the law should value. this is not something that people should be criticized for participating in. last i checked, mr. president, academic freedom and robust discussion of what the law says and which branch of government ought to exercise will and which ought to exercise judgment, that's something to be rewarded. that's part of america's bedrock. its core institutions of civil society, people who are willing to come together not under the auspices of government, not under the control of some bureau or bureaucracy but rather on their own to discuss and debate things that will lead ultimately to the benefit of the people. next, my colleague from maine, senator king, referred to judge kavanaugh's refusal to agree an

advertise participate -- petition torely -- as judge kavanaugh explained in his hearing, this is not the kind of judgment a person makes before taking the bench, before assuming a particular judicial office to which he or she has been nominated. it wouldn't be appropriate for him to an advertise pa torl agree to recuse himself in a type of case he hall yet even to see. i'm not sure why some of my colleagues wanted to put him on the record as taking himself off a certain broad category of cases but that nonetheless seems to be what they were after. that in most circumstances is improper, just as it would be improper to get judge kavanaugh to agree in advance of his confirmation as to how he would vote in a particular type of case. this, too, many of my colleagues find troubling, by the way, and yet this, too, is part of the canons of judicial ethics. we don't want people campaigning

as if on political issues to get on to the supreme court of the united states. we'll get back to that a little bit more later. next, senator king referred to the supposed lack of documentation from the bush administration where judge kavanaugh worked, the lack of documentation meaning the lack of documents coming out of the white house. it's important to know that judge kavanaugh doesn't own the documents in question. no, those are owned by the bush administration. they own the privilege. under the presidential records act which congress itself has enacted, there are terms set, there are agents identified, acts who get to a certain privileges and decide when certain documents will be released and available for our review. i'm not sure what it is they're so terrified might be out there but whatever it is, it's in a document that doesn't belong to us, a document to which we have no access, to which we have no

rightful claim. but a document that in all events is not judge kavanaugh's call. it's not his call to decide what happens to those documents, when, whether, under what circumstances we receive them. it's not his fault. it's not under his control. he has no say over that. do not hold that on his head. that is not his burden, mr. president. then my colleague from maine went on to address judge kavanaugh's demeanor. senator king is not a member of the judiciary committee. i am. senator king acknowledged to having viewed some of the hearing from a television while in other parts of the capitol complex. sometimes with the volume on, sometimes with it off. he said something to the effect that if he were watching from another planet, he would conclude that this man were unfit for judicial office. well, maybe he wasn't watching the same hearing that i was, but i know one thing. senator king was not in that room. i was. let me tell you what i saw. i saw a man who is devoted --

has devoted most of his adult professional career to public service, a man who volunteers his time feeding the hungry, the homeless, to coaching his girls' basketball teams which he's done for a very long time, to teaching, to supervising those who he employs, his law clerks over the last 12 years, by the way, men and women of every background in the united states rave about him, call him the kind of boss that every american would want to have, that everyone -- every young lawyer would dream of working for for the simple opportunity of learning under his tutelage, for the opportunity of serving as a judicial apprenticeship of sorts under a true master of the law. i don't know what senator king was referring to, but he wasn't in that same hearing where i was. he certainly didn't see the same

thing i saw which is someone who was seeking sincerely to defend his own record of public service, his own private conduct against great adversity moreover. in circumstances in which he and his family have been dragged through the mud by no choice of their own. as to the suggestion that he was somehow leveling a threat when he uttered the words what comes around, goes around. i was in that room, mr. president. i understood that to mean one thing and one thing only which is to say when we mess with the process, the process might well remain messed up. that's all he meant. he was not making any kind of a threat. that was apparent, i believe, to anyone watching that it meant anything approaching an open mind, anyone watching that with an open mind would have understood what that meant in context. he was simply stating the obvious, that when we allow

politics to come into play excessively in the process of naming and confirming people to the supreme court of the united states, it messes it up. it messes it up now. it messes it up for the future. we should all be concerned about that. i also heard colleagues -- comments from my colleague, the distinguished senator, the junior senator from illinois. she said among other things that the investigation conducted into allegations involving judge kavanaugh were a sham, a sham. let's think about what that means. it means that she's suggesting that those investigating didn't want to get to the truth. i don't know what documents she's reviewed. but i can tell you the documents i've reviewed, those compiled by the federal bureau of investigations, those compeopled by the -- compiled by the very faithful investigative staff on

the senate judiciary committee were thorough. we're talking about hundreds of pages of transcripts to say nothing of the more than 30 hours of testimony provided by judge kavanaugh himself before the senate judiciary committee. we have been thorough in what we've gone through. and to call this a sham is simply dis ingenuous. it is inaccurate. it is inconsistent with anything i've seen. i heard my colleague from illinois also refer to what she characterized as untrue statements made by judge kavanaugh in connection with judge kavanaugh's alleged participation in the development of the so-called torture policies in the bush administration. as has been stated over and over again by judge kavanaugh and those who worked with him, he wasn't even cleared, didn't even have access to that program, was not involved in that program's creation. the documents to which they

refer in claiming otherwise show only that he was asked about certain arguments that may be presented in court, which is completely different than the question they're talking about, whether he had anything to do with the development, the design, the creation of that program which he did not. so to say he lied about that is completely dishonest. it is not borne out by the facts. and i find this shameful that this accusation would be made. it is completely contrary to the evidence. next, my colleague from illinois referred to concerns over what she referred to as health care outcomes, outcomes in particular cases involving health care. she went on to extol the virtues of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, and spoke at length as if to suggest that

judge kavanaugh were being considered not for judicial position but for a position involving lawmaking, policy setting. he has, after all, been nominated to the position of associate justice of the supreme court, not policymaker. his exercise of judgment of interpreting the law based on what it says rather than on the basis of what he wishes it said, that simply isn't his role and it is unfair to compare him to that standard. moreover, if we are going to compare him to that standard, she has to acknowledge when talking about the affordable care act, he actually wrote an opinion upholding it. now, that is beside the point here, but if she's questioning his judgment and his ability to handle the law and apply the law on the basis of how he views the law and to do so objectively, she ought not be concerned. if she's concerned about the

outcome of cases involving the affordable care act, which i don't think she should be as separate and apart from the judgment part of his role, then she ought to be consoled by the ruling that he made upholding the patient protection and affordable care act. in any event, it simply is not fair to compare him to this stand say because they fear -- because my colleague fierce he might -- fears he might reach a different policy outcome than she would prefer, she is attributing political views that he has not expressed. if you can point to any one of his 300 written published opinions in the federal reports, bring them to me, anyone of those that suggests he is being

impartial in health care or any oh, arena, please bring them to me. i would love to stheem. yet they can't -- them to me. yet they can't and won't because those opinions do not exist. that is why they resorted to other things. that is why they are talking about policies. that is why they are trying to smear this man's character and destroy his good name because they looked through his opinions and can't fine a dud among them. my colleague, the distinguished senator from new hampshire also spoke. she regreted the fact that in her view there been a full investigation into the allegations against judge kavanaugh and suggested that additional evidence would have been helpful and additional evidence exists corroborating the allegations made against

him. well, mr. president, having reviewed hundreds and hundreds of pages of transcripts of interviews resulting from the f.b.i. investigation and from our competent judiciary committee staff, i don't know what she's talking about because the only potential corroborators in this case, that is the alleged eyewitnesses to the accusations in question, those allegedly present in the circumstances in question say that they don't, they can't remember any instance in which anything like this happened. not just the underlying bad acts as alleged themselves, but the events in which they allegedly occurred. that's what we call corroboration. you cannot have a statement that you describe as corroborated unless there's someone who at the time saw or heard or was

otherwise made aware of something at or around the time it occurred. that's what corroborating evidence is, and that is what is noticeably absent in this case. she also claimed that the f.b.i. was not allowed to conduct a serious investigation. i do not know what she means. what i do know is what the f.b.i. was asked to do involved conducting a supplemental investigation into current credible allegations of sexual misconduct, and that's what they did. we on the senate judiciary committee didn't put guard rails around that, didn't tell them that they couldn't follow up on leads that they deemed significant, didn't tell them that they couldn't look past a certain witness, didn't tell them that they couldn't follow up on something that might shed light on this candidate's credibility or his eligibility

to serve in a judicial office, which leads to another point, mr. president. this man has now endured seven f.b.i. investigations, background investigations, seven, with over 150 people interviewed during that time. 150 people interviewed about him extensively about what they know about him, about what they know about his character. those interviews and those reports about him back up his character and there is no corroborating evidence for these allegations. these independently back him up. my colleague in new hampshire, like my colleague from illinois, also brought up the affordable care act. as if assuming from the outset

that on the basis of policy judge kavanaugh would rule a certain way in this or that aspect of anything having to do with health care. here again we have characterizations that would be much more fitting in a political debate for a political office, but, alas, that is not what we have here. my colleague from new hampshire referred to the mueller investigation. i don't know how that is tied to the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, but somehow she tried to make that an issue. i don't know what she's talking about. i don't know how that could possibly be relevant here. she made the argument -- the very serious accusation that judge kavanaugh somehow believes that the president of the united states is above the law. i challenge my colleague from new hampshire to tell me what evidence she has that he believes this.

this is a serious accusation and one that should not be made lightly. i have never, ever heard judge kavanaugh having said or written anything suggesting that the president of the united states is above the law. yes, judge kavanaugh has acknowledged, as he has repeatedly on a number of indication that's -- that there is a dispute among scholars as to the timing and manor of liability that might be faced by a sitting president of the united states. but has never said the president of the united states is above the law, never hinted at it, never concluded it, and therefore it is unfair to attribute that view to him. finally, mr. president, my colleague from new hampshire characterized judge kavanaugh as being someone without character and sort of the antithesis of

being an impartial arbiter. the very best way we can view that, i think, with regard to his character is through his life of public service, through the way he has interacted with those he knows, those who truly know him, not just over the last 36 years, but for his entire lifetime. and the best way we can evaluate his ability to be an impartial arbiter is to review the 300 published opinions that he has written while serving as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. i challenge any one of my colleagues to bring me any of those opinions or any combination of those opinions that shows he's incapable of being impartial or that he is in any way challenged as to

impartiality. they can't do it and haven't done it because such opinions don't exist. judge kavanaugh is a good man. he is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court of the united states. i endorse president trump's nomination of him. i was pleased to vote in favor of cloture, and i look forward to voting for his confirmation in the coming hours. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. at some point during the confirmation hearings now siemg seemingly years ago -- now seemingly years ago, but just a month or so, i saw young women going through the halls of the

capitol with t-shirts that said, i am what's at stake. i am what's at stake. i want to thank those young women and all of the countless women and men of all ages who have come to our nation's capitol to show us what democracy looks like. i know that some of my colleagues have been displeased, in fact, have called it mob rule, but the power and force of democracy was in those voices and faces. a lot of them were from connecticut, and i am proud of your coming here to tell us what you think, both for and against

this nomination. that's what democracy looks like. and when we reject the voices and faces of democracy coming to tell us their truth, we lose something very precious, it is of equal importance to the town halls and the meetings and parades and all that we do at home, and i do a lot of it at home, but i was proud of the folks from connecticut who came here, along with all over the country as far away as alaska and hawaii to give us the benefit of their insight and perspective. i am what's at stake was the message that those women were conveying to us in real people.

we talk here in words. sometimes we hold up posters. we talk in abstract. that is the legal parlance of the courts and our legislature. but our decisions have real-life consequences and the appointment of brett kavanaugh and confirmation that likely will take place tomorrow will affect real people in real time for generations to come. because it's for a lifetime. the courts are among the most anti-democratic institutions in our country, the greatest democracy in the world, and the most enduring of any democracy. they are lifetime appointments,

they are insulated, generally, from attack or even criticism because folks who criticize a judge in his or her presence can be held in contempt. they have powers to punish contempt by immediately jailing someone. anti-democratic so long as they reflect or fail to reflect the will of the people if there are excesses, if the nomination and confirmation process go off the rails, and that is what has happened here, a broken promise and process that has caused a rush to judgment simply for the

sake of arbitrary deadline and irrational time lines placed on a nomination that is fundamentally flawed. a lot of my colleagues have relied on personal assurances from brett kavanaugh in their chambers. he talked to me for an hour and he assured me, i've heard my colleagues say, assured me that he will not overturn roe v. wade, but his answers to us under oath on those topics were evasive and misleading. when i asked him, for example, in our hearing about roe v. wade, he repeated the vague commitment to settle precedent, but he couldn't explain why he

referred to that precedent in his garza dissent as existing precedent, like introducing your wife as my current wife. how long do you think that wife is going to be around? existing precedent. he referred to abortion on demand. these kinds of code words sent a signal to the heritage society and foundation and they were the direct cause or at least one of them for his being on the president's short list after he hadn't been on it before he issued that dissent. looking to what he has actually written and said is a much keener, more reliable insight into what he will do than

personal assurances. and his writings indicating that he believes in effect in a president who can refuse to enforce the affordable care act simply because he deems it unconstitutional, he concludes in his vision of the constitution and his interpretation of the statute that they're in conflict, even after the supreme court of the united states upholds it. and a prior president signs the law and a congress passes it. that kind of monarchical power is an an math that to our checks and balances. and the result could well be in

fact likely will be that millions of americans will be deprived of protections when they suffer from diabetes and heart disease, parkinson's, high blood pressure, pregnancy, the preexisting conditions that the affordable care act was designed to afford people protections and insurance. health care, women's reproductive rights. the right of a woman to decide when she wants to have children, the right of people across america to decide when they want to marry the person they love, whom it is. consumer rights, workers' rights, environmental protection

all are at stake to real people in their real lives for generations to come. i am what is at stake applies to every american. i have never been an -- been angrier or sadder since coming to the united states senate. this nomination was essentially the result of a rush to judgment and of a coverup starting with the concealment of millions of pages of documents. those documents are in the national are a -- national archives. they belong to the people of the united states. but the white house chose to hide them. and then a straitjacketed sham

of an investigation into sexual assault. yes, a sham. really a white watch. -- really a whitewash that refused to interview dozens of witnesses, some of them eyewitnesses who could corroborate the credible and powerful allegations made bisexual assault survivors. my office spoke directly to carey birchman. there's a more recent report out tonight, an excellent report by nbc about how she and others tried to be interviewed, sought and beseeched the f.b.i. to talk to them. but the f.b.i. was given a list because the purpose of that investigation was not to find

the facts. it was to offer cover. it was to permit our colleagues to say there's been a seventh investigation. have my colleagues read those six investigations? do they understand that the general practice -- we can't talk about the details on the floor of course -- but the general practice of the f.b.i. is to begin at age 18, not before. do they understand that the general practice of an f.b.i. background investigation is to interview professional colleagues, coworkers, supervisors and references that are suggested by the nominee to any particular position? and so the seventh investigation was really the crucial one

regarding those allegations of an individual 17 years old or even 18 in college where there was no reason in those earlier six investigations to go back. the f.b.i. was straitjacketed, and that is a disservice to the united states supreme court to the united states senate and our constitutional responsibility and to the people of the united states and ultimately to brett kavanaugh himself because these allegations will not be going away any time soon. they will hang over him and the court as a cloud and a stain for years and years to come.

and facts and evidence have a really powerful way of coming out. eventually facts and evidence have a way of finding a way to the public realm. so from the beginning this nomination has been a crucial test for the senate and for the nation. but this fight is about more than just this supreme court seat. it is about a courageous and credible sexual assault survivor who came forward. actually she expressed concerns

to friends before the nomination was made about brett kavanaugh's possible nomination. she recounted her story years before even the seat opened as documented by her therapist's notes and her husband who by the way was never interviewed. her husband never interviewed. talk about corroborating witnesses. her therapist's notes never reviewed. and she herself never interviewed by the f.b.i. that's an absence of fact finding. and of course judge kavanaugh was never interviewed as well. she came forward to say she was sexually assaulted by brett

kavanaugh, and the details of her claim were lacking in some part. she was frank to admit that she couldn't remember everything which is not atypical of sexual assault survivors as the experts would have told the f.b.i. if they had enter viewed -- had interviewed some experts. but she could remember some parts of that story. and they are details that i will never forget. the laughter from brett kavanaugh and mark judge, the third person she knew to be in that room. the laughter at her expense. the mocking and ridiculing

laughter so vivid in her memory. the same mocking and ridiculing laughter that we heard at some of the rallies where the president mocked and ridiculed her. the same mocking and ridiculing that for decades have been applied to survivors of sexual assault who come forward. and she has endured the same nightmare of public shaming and character assassination and threats, potential retaliation that all too often have silenced sexual assault survivors.

she braved that nightmare knowing full well what was coming. but maybe she thought it would not come from members of the united states senate. maybe she had that naive hope. and if she had it, she was wrong because our colleagues here said she was mixed up. they've said they believe her. they find her credible. but she must be wrong about the identity of the person who attacked her. well, that goes to the second point that rung true vividly in her testimony when she was

asked, could it be mistaken identity? absolutely not. was she sure it was brett kavanaugh? 100% sure. i have a message for my republican colleagues. you can't believe the survivors only when they say what you want to hear. you can't believe the survivors for only those parts of the story that are comfortable and convenient. you can't believe them only when they tell you how they've been hurt horrifically harmed, but not the person who harmed them and hurt them. and you can't believe them if you reject the possibility of a thorough, complete, fair,

impartial investigation into all of the facts and the evidence. my republican colleagues say they would like to believe dr. blasey ford and they would like to believe deborah ramirez, but there's no corroborating evidence. you cannot believe survivors without seeking the corroborating evidence. you cannot believe them if you turn a blind eye to witnesses who come forward and not only are willing but actually in effect pound at the f.b.i.'s door. i've reviewed those interviews with the people who were on the list that the f.b.i. permitted to be interviewed, but i've also better viewed -- i've also reviewed the mounds of tipline

records. i don't know how many of my colleagues have done so. they're fascinating and illuminating and profoundly revealing because there are actually tips from people who came forward and had a personal connection to the events of interest and of course i am barred from providing details, but none of them was contacted or interviewed. that's not an investigation. that's not an investigation by the f.b.i. worthy of the f.b.i. name, and i am offering no criticism of the f.b.i. because they were in effect narrowly

circumscribed, limited, straitjacketed, handcuffed by someone in the administration, and we need to find out who it was and how it was done. now, both women offered evidence of the kind that is routinely offered in sexual assault cases. they can prove that they told others about their experiences long before the current nomination fight. christine ford had a polygraph test and therapists' notes, and both women can point to a history of brett kavanaugh acting inappropriately when drunk. what my republican colleagues apparently mean when they say there are no corroborating

witnesses is that none were permitted to tell their stories to the f.b.i. not that they weren't available. i'd like to say that this approach to sexual assault survivors is a thing of the past, a throwback to some other time, but the fact is it remains real in the lives of survivors around this country today. they should know that we are going to stand with them, that this example of in effect failing a proper and complete impartial investigation is far from acceptable to us.

and i want to make a commitment to my colleagues and to the public that i will continue fighting to find the facts. the american people deserve to know why the f.b.i. failed to complete a full investigation of these powerful and credible allegations. they deserve a full understanding of what the investigation would have found. they deserve full access to judge kavanaugh's record, those millions of pages of documents that were concealed and that raise the question what are they hiding, what are they afraid of the american people seeing from the time that brett kavanaugh served in the white house as staff secretary? i filed an f.o.i. suit to force disclosure of millions of pages of judge kavanaugh's documents

that have been hidden from the country. the majority leader chose to vote without seeing those documents, but i have no intention of stopping in this effort until they have been disclosed, and they will be. they will come out. adding to the cloud and the shame. the allegations here are desperately serious. they are credible and powerful. and our job was to make sure that the facts in evidence either supported them or not. debates over the supreme court often focus on civil rights and civil liberties. those protections enshrined in the first ten amendments to the constitution.

and make no mistake, those rights and liberties are at stake here. but this supreme court debate is also about the fight between powerful corporate interests and ordinary americans. corporations have become adept at using the courts when their arguments fail to persuade policymakers and the american people. when the e.p.a. banned polluters from spewing poison into the environment, polluters go to court to stop that agency. when the f.c.c. prevents cable giants from censoring the internet, those companies go to court to stop that enforcement. when the labor department or the nlrb take action to protect workers, or when the cfpb or f.t.c. take action to protect consumers, big employers and financial services firms go to court to stop them. if you want to breathe clean air

or drink clean water, if you want a free and open internet, if you want to work or purchase products free of corporate abuse and fraud, this fight is about your life. it's about you. and this nomination poses a clear and present danger to those enforcement efforts. it poses a danger to the rights of women to decide when they want to have children, and to millions of americans with preexisting conditions who want to keep their affordable health insurance. it poses a danger clear and present to workers and consumers who want to leave -- live free of corporate domination. and he poses maybe most dangerously a threat to the checks and balances that prevent

a president from running this country like his own personal fiefdom. in his opinions, his speeches, his writings and his testimony, we can see where this nominee will take the country if he is a swing vote, as he is likely to be, on so many of these issues. he's used those dog whistles or bumper stickers in his campaign for his nomination. those terms and buzzwords, abortion on demand, and sometimes he uses a bullhorn as when he promises conservative organizations that he will overturn long-standing near-unanimous precedents that

have fallen out of favor with the right wing or when he goes out of his way to publish long dissents, articulating a radical understanding of the law and its value. he has been not so much a nominee as a candidate for office. he has been campaigning for this job since law school. and like many candidates for office, he has spent that time demonstrating to potential political patrons that if they pick him, he will diligently represent their interests. he is their guy, and that's how he became a member of that elite group on the president's short list. i'll conclude by saying that most chilling, indeed frightening for me was his appearance before this committee

. our judiciary committee when he gave a rant and a screed that was written the day before, so he said. it was delivered word for word from that text. it was hardly the result of some spontaneous insult or outburst. it was calculated and planned. it took back the mask of the judge and revealed the man. bitter, self pitying, rageful, and a deep partisan, which he had demonstrated before throughout his career as a party operative but not on the bench.

the man revealed there said to us what comes around goes around. he said that the powerful allegations of the sexual assault survivors were the result of a left-wing conspiracy fueled by revenge on behalf of the clintons. those remarks demean the brave and courageous survivors who came forward on their own initiative without any encouragement by any senator. and they were degrading to christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez but to the

survivor community. and they were directly contrary to judge kavanaugh's own test of what a judge should do. the supreme court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. the justices on the supreme court do not sit on opposite sides of the aisle. and what he told our committee, he was sitting on one side of the aisle -- in fact, on one distinct side of that side of the aisle. and that is the reason that former justice john paul stevens found his appearance before that committee, not only his prepared remarks but what he said after as disqualifying. that's the reason 2,400 lawyers

and professors and former judges have written urging that his nomination be rejected. that's the reason that i find most frightening. i have appeared four times before the united states supreme court. every time has been an extraordinary honor. and i have spent a good part of my career standing in front of judges. sometimes with juries and sometimes not. what i prized in judges most importantly was that they were nonpartisan, that they were objective and neutral, and i don't know how lawyers or ordinary parties to any case could stand before judge kavanaugh now and feel that they will be judged fairly and

impartially. my colleagues have come to accept these vague assurances from nominees that they will simply call balls and strikes, that they will follow settled precedence, but we have seen those vague promises betrayed when judges or justices actually reach the court, and i look to what he said in that hearing before the judiciary committee as a warning about what will happen if justice kavanaugh is confirmed. what he wrote in the op-ed today in "the wall street journal" provides no assurance because

the real brett kavanaugh came before our committee, and the real brett kavanaugh wrote down in advance what he felt. and the real brett kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the united states supreme court. even at this late hour, i hope that my colleagues will heed that warning. we may lose this battle, but we cannot lose the broader struggle for justice in this country. and so i will stay angry. i hope my colleagues and others around the country will as well. and to the young people who came to these halls wearing that

t-shirt, i am what's at stake, you are right, you are what's at stake. stay angry. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. merkley: mr. president, our founders had a very clear design for the ability to put individuals into high posts of great responsibility. they really wrestled with it. they considered giving the ability to appoint judges and theexecutive officers to the assembly, as it was referred to. i think we have to worry a lot about individuals swapping favors, one person saying you support my friend, i'll support yours and that wouldn't lead to those with the best qualities serving in these key positions. so they concluded after great debate that it would go to a single individual, the

president, to nominate. but they realized that a president can go off track. they thought, well, the president might express favoritism over a variety of sorts. alexander hamilton talked about this at some length. maybe favoritism to the people in the home state. maybe favorite favoritism to a close group of friends, maybe favoritism to individuals doing favors back to the president. who knows. there had to be a check of the potential abuse of the appointment process, and that's where the senate came in, the senate to advise and consent. the president to nominate, the senate to consent. what that meant is the senate could not interfere with the president in the nomination process, and the president was not to interfere with the senate in the confirmation process.

yet we have right now for the first time in u.s. history as far as anyone's been able to ascertain a case in which the president of the united states has interfered greatly. first of all, requesting that the senate not look at all at the three years in which this individual kavanaugh, the nominee served as staff secretary to president bush. second of all, the president appointed an individual to provide the stamp of presidential privilege on documents for when he served on the white house counsel that they did not want the senate to see. we got some of those documents. they said okay, those are okay but they censored a hundred thousand documents with the presidential privilege stamp. that's never been done, ever, as far as we can determine. and this body on a bipartisan

basis requested all of those documents. this was not a case of the president saying please don't request like with the staff secretary. this is a case the senate together said give us the documents. and the president refused. now, this is something we should all stand together and say unacceptable. unacceptable that the president has stepped across the separation of powers to interfere with the work of this body, to review the nominee's record. and the fact that there have not been loud cries of protests from the leadership of this senate is a shame on this institution that it has not fought for the separation of powers embodied in the constitution. it has not fought for the ability of each and every senator to be able to exercise

full responsibility when we took our oath of office to review the record of nominees engaged in the advice and consent exercise. so is this to be a precedent for the future? because the leadership here has so shamefully abandoned the core principles of the constitution and the responsibilities of this chamber. well, i hope not. i hope that together all hundred senators will find in the future that they will take and make sure that the president cannot interfere with our responsibility. this is only one of the many problems, the many concerns about brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh didn't raise a single voice about the

interference of the president in the exercise of this body. he is supposed to have read the constitution at some point. he's supposed to understand the separation of powers. he's supposed to stand up for the principles embodied in that great document, and he did not. that alone should tell you that this man does not belong on the supreme court. and then of course there's the fact that he has a view of presidential power of the president above and beyond the law. try to find that in the constitution. he was the one among the 25 who had the most expansive view of presidential power. it's the one the president chose. why is that? because the president is under investigation for conspiring with russia to fix the election. that's why.

he's worried. he's up at night. he wakes up early. he tweets out to the world hang bring, hostile. he wants to make sure he has a judge on that court who can help write a get out of jail free card. and what a conflict of interest. what a conflict of interest that this court might have to rule on whether a president can pardon himself. something we've never had to worry about before, whether a president can fire a special prosecutor despite the writing under the law. well, that's not all. we have before us a nominee who has been deceptive and misleading to this chamber time after time after time. different articles have put out different lists. they all come down to here's what he said and here's the truth. here's what he said and here's the truth.

i want to take and pivot though to perhaps the most shameful, difficult part of this nominee, and that is his record of abuse towards women and the failure, the complete failure of this body to look into that. i heard earlier on the floor of this chamber a number of my colleagues across the aisle use the word fairness. we want fairness. i heard it from one, two, three, four colleagues, fairness. did a single one of them express any regret that when dr. ford came forward and asked for those who could corroborate her testimony, ask for the judiciary committee to hold a hearing with those folks able to testify? did they express any regret that

they turned her down? even in 1991 the judiciary committee brought forward people to corroborate anita hill's story. here we are 27 years later and we don't treat a woman coming forward to share an experience, the fact of abuse, sexual abuse. we don't even allow those individuals that can corroborate to testify before the judiciary committee. did i hear a single republican stand up and say i am embarrassed we treated her so poorly? or let's take debbie ramirez. she laid out a list of 20 individuals. the judiciary committee had a lot to say about her experience but did they invite her to testify and be able to tell her side of the story? no, they did not.

she had a list of 20 individuals who could provide corroborating information. did they ask a single one of those 20 for come before the committee? did they allow a single one to come? no, they did not. there was no fairness in that committee. let's be clear about that. and let's not hear more highfalutin arguments about fairness from the other side of the aisle when these two women were treated such afternoon egregious and awful -- such an egregious and awful fashion. then there is the phony f.b.i. investigation. now, i praised my colleague who insisted that the record be reopened, the background check be reopened for the f.b.i. to provide an opportunity to check out these experiences shared by

debbie ramirez and by dr. ford. but on a background check, it's not a criminal investigation and the f.b.i. can't decide who to talk to. they can only talk to those individuals who the president says they can talk to. did i hear a single member across the aisle express any embarrassment about the fact that they let the president constrain the investigation? not one, not one of the eight people dr. ford asked to be talked to was talked to. not one. zero. you call that fair? that's not fair. that's not fair to her, that none of the people she asked to talk to were talked to. did i hear a single person across the aisle express any respect vases about the fact -- reservations about the fact that that f.b.i. investigation was so constrained by the president of

the united states with advice from the republican leadership, they did not talk to one of the 20 people debbie ramirez asked to be talked to about her experiences in college. you know, one of those 20 was a suite mate of mr. kavanaugh. well, when you go through your freshman year and you're a suite mate, you share a common living area and there's one bedroom here and one bedroom here so you're with each other all the time. you know a lot about the other folks. well, that's a pretty powerful association. and that individual is now a professor at princeton theological seminary. and i heard this story when it happened. he heard it about it and he

lived right there in the suite and he thought it was horrific. so i heard some colleagues say there was no one who could substantiate her story. that is simply false. and it is shameful to allege that there is no one when you know there is. it is unacceptable to call something fair when you deliberately instruct or encourage the president to make sure that the people who can provide the information are not talked to. now this individual now a professor at princeton theological seminary, very fine reputation, he was so upset about this, he talked about it with his roommate his first year in graduate school long before mr. kavanaugh ever came close to

any type of nomination debate. so you can't really say that he made it up now when he told another person about it long ago. and that individual, he was on the list to be talked to. but did the f.b.i. talk to him? no because the president wouldn't let the f.b.i. talk to him and the president consulted with the republican leadership and they didn't want anybody talked to who could actually corroborate these stories. that is a rigged system. for anyone on this floor to say that's anywhere close to a form of justice, that is not true. these women have been horrifically treated by this chamber. just as the country knew anita

hill was treated so poorly so will for decades from now people talk about the abuse of power that emanated from my colleagues across the aisle against these women. across this land right now women have been reliving their own experiences of abuse. it's been an extraordinarily painful experience. they have been calling up our offices. i'm sure they've been calling up all of our offices. i got on the phone, took many calls today, heard story after story. it takes a lot of energy out of your heart to listen to individuals say i'm sharing this with you and they start crying on the phone, person after

person. i also have all the stories that have been written and sent to me as letters. i thought i'd share a few of them with you. here's a letter. what a farce the disrespect to dr. ford and to victims everywhere. i am sincere in saying that this trial is turning my stomach. i have fought back tears. i am a victim of similar offenses. it is no better and in some ways worse that it is a woman going after dr. ford in a subtle attempt to cloud the truth of her experience. what is she referring to when she says it is a woman going after dr. ford? she is talking about the fact that the leadership of the

judiciary committee hired a prosecutor to come in and act as if dr. ford was a criminal on trial and interrogate her as if she was a criminal on trial. that's what this individual said is turning my stomach. and it turned my stomach, too, to see that abuse of power here in the u.s. senate. another letter. hello, senator. it's been 21 years since i was raped. i had at the time only shared my story with the emergency room doctors, the police, and my mom. since it occurred, i have only shared my story with my husband

until this week on twitter with the why i didn't report hashtag. with each new accusation against brett kavanaugh, it has forced me to relive all the horrible memories from the night my assailant raped me. this moment in history. and the fact that the majority of republican senators who have either tried to discredit the women coming forward or victim blamed and shamed them has literally made the events so fresh in my mind as though it just happened all over again yesterday. as like dr. ford, the details of dates, exact time, exact clothing are not extremely forthcoming to my memory. although i remember the colors of what we were both wearing.

the fear, his actions, what i was feeling and what was said during the rape i will never forget, and i will never forget the smell of the cal own he was wearing and how it makes me physically ill when i smell it to this day. kavanaugh can have his fake tears and shout his anger all he wants because i guarantee you that the man who -- if the man who raped me was trying to get a job on the supreme court and if i had the strength to come forward like dr. ford did, then he, too, would yell and scream at the realization he was being confronted and that it was about to be taken away from him. not to mention my sexual assailant would not request an f.b.i. investigation either. and what's she referring to there? she is referring to the fact

that dr. ford took a polygraph exam, dr. ford asked for an f.b.i. investigation. mr. kavanaugh did not take a polygraph exam, and mr. kavanaugh did not want an f.b.i. investigation. quite a difference there. here's another story. five years ago, i was assaulted by a trusted friend in my dorm room. although i don't recall some critical details indelible in the hipocampus is the fear of retaliation. that's why i never reported, even when school nurses urged me to. years later, i suffered ptsd and

rarely feel entirely safe. watching kavanaugh's angry, arrogant performance was deeply triggering to me when my attacker -- would my attacker react the same way if i outed him? and would he also find the support of 33% of americans just like kavanaugh? until now, i haven't shared that i'm a survivor with even the closest of my friends and family, but it's too important to stay quiet now. here's another story. hello, senator merkley. when i was young in the early 1970's, i was raped for an entire year by someone close to our family. i didn't tell. i didn't tell because his

warnings and threats were too powerful and frightening for the child that i was. that man went on to become active in a leadership role. he was in fact in a position to give talks about morality and principles, all the while knowing how he affected my life because that was the year he took my childhood away. watching dr. ford's testimony was tough, but i did it. i always knew if i came forward against the man who did this, it would be his word against mine, and as a female, i would lose. so i stayed quiet, never naming him publicly and never will. but i'm writing today to ask you for two things, please. if you hear any of your fellow

senators say i know his character, he would never do that. he's never done anything like that in front of me, please remind them that they don't like witnesses. for me, there was never a hint of an assault until he got me alone. and if you hear your fellow senators say but it happened 40 years ago, please assure them that in the victim's heart, mind, and life, it happened last week. it happened yesterday. it happened today because you never get past what was done to you, ever. you can't. and she went on to share that she wrote this letter to me and deleted it and wrote it again and deleted it self-times.

and she had just deleted it again when her husband came in the door carrying a statement that someone had been posting on the doors in the neighborhood that happened to have a quote from me, one of her two senators, and she took it as a sign and decided to write that letter again and send it, and she said now, maybe what happened to me will bring about some good. i know all of us are getting letters like this. and when she said she never came forward because it would be his word against mine and as a female i would lose, she is relating exactly what happened to dr. ford. it was set up he said, she said

with no corroborating witnesses called even though dr. ford asked for them, and then because it was he said, she said, my colleagues could stand up and say i just can't prove it. i can't prove it. but why didn't my colleagues stand up and say it's an outrage that we didn't call the people she asked us to call? it's an outrage that there was this phony f.b.i. investigation and didn't talk to any of those people? what she is talking about right here is how dr. ford was treated in this chamber, that she would lose because men in power would rig the system and find for the man. that's what's happened here. that's what happened with ms. ramirez, debbie ramirez. she had corroborating information from the suitemate

of brett kavanaugh. but we here in this senate, we rigged the system so that information cannot be considered. that's what this woman's talking about, why she didn't come forward. it would be her word against a man's. the system would be rigged and would find for the man. that's what's so disturbing to women all over this country, a rigged system that we couldn't find in our collective judgment, in our collective process, the ability to rise against partisanship and give fair treatment a fair process to the individuals who came forward. it may not have changed the course of events in the final vote, but at least women would know we have come from where we were. we may not have been entirely fair to anita hill, but we have learned and we have come

further. instead, we did worse. that is a regrettable, powerful consequence of what has happened. another constituent wrote to say that although he was not a direct victim of assault, both of his brothers were repeatedly sexually abused by a catholic priest who spent eight years in prison for abusing as many as 150 boys. and he went on to say that this priest was in charge of a boy's choir. even though it was known he had issues with sexual abuse. the brothers, his brothers were part of the choir and he's troubled, he writes, that his

younger brother served on the same choir he did, and even though he was aware there was a problem, he didn't intermean. he says, referring to the priest, he ruined our lives -- and i'm quoting from the letter now. although i was not directly a victim of his abuse, i carry with me the shame of not knowing to speak up about what i saw, and he says that that shame is amplified because his younger brother sang in the same choir for a time. and he goes on to talk about a culture, a culture of power and privilege where people think they can abuse others and get away with it. he says we are seeing this behavior being accepted at the highest level of office in our country, and he goes on to relate that this is similar to the culture abuse towards women.

he says the culture of abuse towards women is being openly perpetuated by the leaders of our country, the people we are supposed to put trust in. that was the end of his quote. he went on to say -- and again i quote -- i have never felt like it was my story to tell. the only reason i tell it is because it illustrates how dangerous these power structures can be, how easily they can be abused. we have to take great care when choosing who to give great responsibility to. have we in this chamber recognized how easily our power structure can be abused? did we rise to insist for fairness for individuals who brought their stories forward? did we insist that they have the opportunity to have their witnesses and corroborating information considered by this chamber?

we did not. we failed them. we failed this country. and when he says we have to take great care when choosing who to give great responsibility to, he's saying we should have taken great care. and we know that in this particular nomination, there are two powerful pieces of it. one, it's lifetime. the person can serve for decades. the second is it is the top court. are there not individuals in this land of hundreds of millions of people who have stellar records of character that could serve on that court? i hope across america it will come to great discussion and

lead to changes in how we think and how we behave. i hope that between now and the vote tomorrow afternoon there will be some members of this chamber who will decide to take seriously the responsibility that we had and that we failed to exercise appropriately. that will decide, you know what, yeah, we voted to close debate, but we haven't yet voted to put this man on the bench, and that having conducted a completely rigged process in the committee, we need to stop and rethink what we're doing and not put brett kavanaugh on the court. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the to