on everything down to the definition of some of those terms, or it may be that they see a talent in him that is unique that the rest of us don't see. but i worry that what matters in this place these days is just winning, and i worry about that for democrats, too. i worry that ultimately what drives us when we get up in the morning in washington, d.c. these days is just beating the other side, that it is just a game, that it is just an athletic contest, that we have become what the news media, what the cable shows want us to be, a shorting event. and i think that of late, my republican colleagues have been more guilty of this than

democratic colleagues. i have that bias. i admit it. i'm allowed to have it as a partisan, but i think that it exists on both sides of this body and has. this i would argue is just the worst especial suppose of that desire for political dominance, and it's something that we should all in the wake of this nomination step back from and think long and hard about. mr. president, i yield the floor i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: thank you. i'd ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: thank you. mr. president, i rise today as the senate has been called upon to fulfill our constitutional duty to give advice and consent on president trump's nominee to the supreme court brett kavanaugh. now, in the past presidents

worked with a bipartisan senate to point someone who understood the importance of precedent and transparency who respected the independence and integrity of the highest court in the land. unfortunately, that did not happen during this nomination process. instead, the process was flawed to fast-track a nominee without a full vetting for political gain. brett kavanaugh was hand picked by the federalist society, a right-wing lobbying organization dedicated to overturning roe v. wade. why? because as he has made clear on several occasions, president trump wants to stack the court with justices who will overturn roe v. wade. now, i am new to the senate, and as long as i've been here, i've been told this is not regular

order. and so as we went through this confirmation hearing, unfortunately i had found it along with my colleagues to be fast-tracked. and i take very seriously my role to advice and consent when it comes to a nominee and i think we all as senators have equal votes. and we should all have access to all of the information, a full vetting of any nominee who wants to sit on the highest court for a lifetime appointment. think about this, the highest court. there's only nine members. lifetime appointment. and this is something that we should all, all look for the right person. and everyone should have a full vetting. but this hearing was fast-tracked. not only was it fast-tracked, we did not have access to all of the documents necessary to determine, to determine whether

brett kavanaugh not only had the correct judicial philosophy but the judicial temperament and impartiality that is necessary for somebody to sit on the highest court of the land. not only were we limited in the number of documents but what little documents we did get, unfortunately some of them were marked committee confident -- confidential. in an effort to prevent members from using documents to question the witness by unilaterally declaring them committee confidential, many of my colleagues in the senate judiciary committee hearing were unable to adequately question judge kavanaugh. i am told that that process of committee confidential is without precedent. republicans claim that chairman

leahy also accepted documents on a committee confidential basis during the kagan nomination. those documents were processed by the national archives, not private partisan lawyers and republicans did not object. by the time of her hearing, 99% of elena kagan's white house records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. in contrast, the committee has only 7% of brett kavanaugh's white house records and only 4% were made available to the public. no senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents committee confidential and prohibit their public release. neither the rules of the senate nor the rules of committee authorize unilateral designation

there was no committee action and ranking member feinstein sent a letter stating she did not agree with a blanket designation and asked the chairman to work with her to identify a subset of documents that should remain confidential and he refused. but the chairman then released thousands of mr. kavanaugh's documents himself. specifically, he posted thousands of documents that had previously been marked committee confidential after consulting with mr. burck. if these were confidential, committee confidential document, then the chairman's actions also would violate senate rules. the senate rule on executive sessions provides a penalty for disclosing the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the senate, but it requires a vote of the committee action to conduct confidential business or proceedings. democrats cannot be held to a different standard. chairman grassley has asserted

that mr. burck had sole authority to decide what documents could be used to question judge kavanaugh and sole authority as to which documents could be released to the public. however, he has failed to cite any rule or statute that gives mr. burck any authority. we should not move forward with hearings when we only had a fraction of the nominee's record. and the most significant documents that we had remained hidden from public view. now, the chairman claimed that he provided ample opportunity for democrats to clear committee confidential documents for use at the hearing, but he refused the request of several members to make documents on a number of topics public. and i also want to make it clear that as i watched that hearing, there were allegations that members of the senate didn't even show up to take a look at these confidential documents so why were we complaining.

i'll tell you what, mr. president. i showed up. i was there for three days looking at all of these documents because i thought it was necessary, even if we were going to be limited in what we could see and what we could talk about. i had a voice equal like everyone else. and i should have access to those documents and figure out if i had the opportunity to talk to judge kavanaugh or talk with my colleagues about it, then i should have access to those documents. but even when we had access, the chairman demanded that democrats send him their documents for preclearance by his staff. president bush's lawyers and the white house. now, my understanding is never before has minority members of the committee been required to identify and preclear the topics and documents that they want to discuss with the supreme court nominee with the chairman or outside private lawyers or the white house.

never has the majority asserted unilateral authority to preclear what issues the minority party can even ask a nominee. the idea that democrats have to ask republicans to preclear their questions in a senate judiciary committee hearing is outrageous. if the chairman, bill burck, and the trump white house were truly interested in a transparent process, mr. burck and the white house could make the white house counsel records public now as president obama and former president clinton did for the kagan nomination. but we still don't have access to all of the documents. we still have a process that is broken. we still have a process that unfortunately did not provide all of the senators the opportunity to have a full vetting.

of brett kavanaugh. now, i took my time. i reviewed judge kavanaugh's record. i looked at his cases, his written statements. i listened to his comments in the hearing. i reviewed the documents committee confidential. i wanted an opportunity to meet with him but unfortunately that never happened, so i could question him myself. based on all the information and based on taking my time like i did with our previous nominee because it is that important that we get the right person on the bench, but in his statements and in his writings and opinions, it was clear to me that brett kavanaugh has shown that he does not respect precedent. he does not respect a woman's right to choose.

he does not respect workers' rietle. if confirmed -- rights. if confirmed, i believe judge kavanaugh's extreme activist judicial philosophy will pose a threat to women, our environment, our constitutional separation of powers, and our fundamental civil rights. but it's not just brett kavanaugh's judicial philosophy that troubles me. last week judge kavanaugh testified before the senate judiciary committee to defend himself against sexual assault allegations. he was asking for our vote for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. one of the deepest and most profound honors this nation can bestow upon a citizen. this nominee was interviewing for a job in front of the american people, and he was belligerent, evasive, and aggressive.

this nominee who currently sits as an appellate court judge on a d.c. circuit court disregarded all demeanor and respect for impartiality and independence by accusing the democrats of engaging in -- and i quote -- a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pentup anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about his judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. he then took it even further by stating, and as we all know in the united states political system of the early 2000's, what goes around comes around. what goes around comes around? are those the words of an impartial judge?

of course not. during the question and answer period with the senators, he was belligerent, impatient, and aggressive towards anyone who pressed him to get to the truth. his demonstrated lack of temperament and impartiality is another reason why i cannot support him. it is also why over 240 law professors from respected law schools across this country penned a letter to the senators to state that the senate should not confirm judge kavanaugh. some of these very law professors who also appeared before the u.s. supreme court, some of these very law professors who also practice and teach at yale and harvard, they wrote, and i quote, judicial temperament is one of the most

important qualities of a judge. a judge requires a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result. they further stated at the senate hearings on september 27, judge brett kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land. and former supreme court justice john paul stevens, a republican appointed by president ford, stated similar concerns. when i watched judge kavanaugh's testimony, i didn't see a fair and impartial justice. i saw a man who is blinded by rage and ideology. as a sitting judge, brett kavanaugh knows better. he knows better.

his accuser, dr. christine blasey ford, testified before the senate judiciary committee for four hours. she was poised, serious, and credible in recounting what was clearly one of the most scarring, traumatic experiences of her life, and she did it on live television for all the world to hear. she did it in the face of death threats. she did it at the risk of damaging her credibility and career. she had nothing to gain. she has done a profound service to everyone whose life has been touched by sexual assault or abuse. dr. ford, i believe you and i thank you for your courage in coming forward. now, i believe in a fair and independent process for people who have been accused of serious crimesolvers like sexual assault

, -- serious crimes like sexual assault, and the process should include a neutral investigation that is thorough and nonpartisan because it will hold a perpetrator accountable or exonerate the falsely accused. but that fair and independent process did not occur this time. i am gladsome of my colleagues stood up to make sure the f.b.i. had a chance to reopen its background investigation. but i'll tell you what. after reading the recent f.b.i. report, it is clear that republican leadership limited its scope. and i say that as somebody who not only has been a prosecutor for ten years, eight years the attorney general of the state of nevada. you conducted criminal investigations and oversaw peace officers who did the same thing. because what they did not do, they did not interview dr. ford

nor obtain from her the important medical records that would corroborate her testimony. in fact, her attorneys wrote to the f.b.i. offering up not only additional witnesses but making the statement that if they were to interview dr. ford, she would have also provided corroborating evidence including her medical records and access to the phone from which she messaged "the washington post" about judge kavanaugh's assault prior to -- prior to his nomination to the supreme court. and i'm here to tell you corroborating evidence isn't just in the form of witness statements. it's in the form of documentation that is key. and that was never, never recovered by the f.b.i. and i'll tell you, the potential witnesses that potentially the

f.b.i. could have talked to, we know, we know because they came forward out of the civic duty, and they went public, and the f.b.i. still did not talk to them. we know dr. blasey ford's husband, russell ford, basically said, he said that christine shared the details of the sexual assault during a couples therapy session in 2012. she said that in high school she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched. and dr. ford, husband, said i remember her saying that the attacker's name was brett kavanaugh. in 20122012. -- in 2012, 2012. along with her husband, adela

gildo-mazzon, a friend of dr. ford, came forward and said in june of 2013, she said that -- dr. ford said that she had been almost raped by someone who is now a federal judge. she told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys and that she then escaped, ran away, and hid. and a third witness and somebody who could have corroborated dr. ford's statement, glenn brooks. brett kavanaugh's college friend. he said there is no doubt in my mind that while at yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. so i know and unfortunately too often we have seen in this particular case an f.b.i.

supplemental report that was not thorough. in addition after i reviewed the summary of the report and realized we were missing information, the additional corroboration would have also gone to debby ramirez's allegations, but they did not -- they did not interview, the f.b.i. did not interview important witnesses to corroborate debbie ramirez's allegations. we now know because they have been, again, willing to come forward after seeing what has been happening through these hearings, kenneth apole, a suite matt for brett kavanaugh at yale who is now a professor at princeton, said i can corroborate debbie's account. he said i believe her because it matches the same story i heard 35 years ago, although the two of us have never talked.

and professor apole was never interviewed. likewise, james roche was also a roommate for brett kavanaugh, and he said although brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. and likewise, chad ludington, a college classmate, came forward. i can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, brett has not told the truth. but they were not interviewed by the f.b.i. so now because we only have limited information, all senators are left with a lack of a full understanding of the facts surrounding the allegations against brett kavanaugh.

the question swirling around brett kavanaugh get at the very heart of our responsibility as members of the united states senate. we are not here to be a rubber stamp on the president's nominees. we are a check and balance on his power. we are here to work with him to make decisions that are right for the american people. that means we listen to our constituents. that includes women and men who have varied their experiences os of trauma for far too long. i have received letters from my constituents from all over nevada sharing their stories of survival. i heard from men and women in our military who were struggling not just with the effects of ptsd but with the experience of being sexually abused. i recently met with women who led the campaign to codify a woman's right to choose in the nevada state constitution, and

they all asked me to oppose brett kavanaugh's nomination, and i stand with them. i stand with survivors. i stand for the right of every american woman to make her own health care decision. i believe dr. christine blasey ford. i believe in the integrity and independence of our judicial system. i condemn brett kavanaugh's confrontational and partisan behavior, and i condemn the handling of this nomination by senate republican leaders. we must work together in a bipartisan way and restore our constitutional role of advice and consent. this is about something bigger than any one nominee. it's about the integrity of our institutions. it's about the core functions of

our democracy. we can't allow partisan politics to eat away at the checks and balances enshrined in our constitution. we have to return to common decency and regular order. anything less is below the dignity of the american people and the great constitution we swore an oath to faithfully support. i encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this temperamentally unfit nominee. thank you, mr. president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. the senate should demand a better nominee for the supreme court. these last two weeks have torn our country apart, but even before these allegations against judge kavanaugh became public, there was enough in judge kavanaugh's record to cause me to vote no. his record is clear. as a justice, he will damage women's rights, civil rights,

the environment, voting rights, and economic fairness, and he will also damage native hawaiian self-determination. let's start with native hawaiians. in a "wall street journal" op-ed , he wrote that native hawaiians didn't deserve protections as indigenous peoples. he wrote an amicus brief in the case rice versus cayetano arguing that hawaii violated the constitution only permitting hawaiians to vote in the office for hawaiian affairs, the agency charged with working to advocate for the native hawaiian community. these views come from a lack of knowledge of the history of native hawaiians as well as federal law and policies related to u.s. indigenous peoples. based on nothing at all, he thinks indigenous peoples are

just another race. in his words, hawaii's naked racial spoils system makes remedial setasides and hiring and admissions preferences look almost trivial by comparison. if hawaii is permitted to offer extraordinary privileges to residents on the basis of religious or ethnic heritage, so will every other state. now, this is wrong on policy, this is wrong on the law, this is wrong historically, but it's also important to recognize the tone here. remedial setasides, racial spoils. this is not someone who understands the plight of indigenous people and the history of our country as it relates to indigenous people. these views have serious consequences for alaska natives and american indians, too. the federal government's protections for indigenous peoples are built on tenets of

the constitution, federal statutes, legal precedent, and congressional actions. they exist against a backdrop of u.s. injustice against the indigenous american indian, alaska native, and native hawaiian communities. judge kavanaugh's misinformed views on the status of indigenous people are alarming. his views on women are also alarming. there is no doubt in my mind that judge kavanaugh will undermine reproductive rights. now, he knows better than to say in public that he is going to vote to overturn roe v. wade. that's not what they do. the federalist society trains these people really well. do -- really well to not say what they are going to do. but there is a reason that everyone who wants to ban abortion is so enthusiastic about this judge. they are not dumb. they understand his views, and they understand that the one thing you can't say is that yes, i will vote to overturn roe.

here's an e-mail from his days in the bush administration which, by the way, the republicans tried to hide from the public. he says i'm not sure all legal scholars refer to roe as the settled law of the land at the supreme court level since the court can always overrule its precedent and three current justices on the court would do so. and this is exactly why the senate deserves to know if judge kavanaugh would overrule this precedent. i think he will. time after time during the hearing, he evaded answers to that question, but we already know that he embraces restrictive limitations on abortion that would in practice deprive women of their constitutional rights. judge kavanaugh argued in one case that the federal government can and should override a young woman's constitutional right to seek an abortion because she was an immigrant. this young woman had complied

with the requirements of state law to make that decision herself. she did not need the federal government to transport her, pay for, or in any way facilitate the procedure. she just needed them to let her out of detention to do the procedure, but they didn't want to. they wanted to pressure her to voluntarily deport herself. they put up artificial barriers to prevent her from exercising her constitutional right. and judge kavanaugh endorsed those barriers. making a young woman wait weeks to obtain an abortion for no reason based in the constitution, federal or state law, or even public policy is an undue burden. and republicans who worry about the overstepping of the state should care about this. judge kavanaugh's dissent shows his lack of respect for roe. but even if he avoids directly

overturning roe, he could be greenlighting state or federal law that in a practical effect outlaw abortion. judge kavanaugh would also rip apart the a.c.a. if given a chance. he ruled to limit access to contraception under the a.c.a., and he has made it clear that he thinks the affordable care act is, quote, a significant expansion of congressional authority and thus also a potentially significant infringement of individual liberty, a significant expansion of congressional authority and potentially a significant infringement of individual liberty. now, that sounds like something a republican colleague would say. it's just a view about the affordable care act, which is to the extent that we're -- to the extent that we're collecting taxes and establishing some statutory mandates to try to make sure more people have health care than is affordable, that it's a zero sum game, and the more people that have health care, the less liberty either

the rest of us have or maybe even those people have. i don't really know how it works, but that's a view. it's a view you hear. and i respect my republican colleagues for their views. i believe that they are sincere in those views. that's not normally the kind of thing you hear from a judge. he has a clear view about the affordable care act that isn't based in jurisprudence. it's based in his long history as a republican operative. i want to be really clear. republican operative sounds like an epithet, a personal insult. i work with a lot of operatives. they tend to be democrats. operatives, not all of them but some of them are pretty cool. some of them are honorable. a lot are effective. someone has to run a campaign. someone has to mobilize voters. that's part of our american system of democracy. like it or hate it, they are our operatives. it's just that we normally don't put them on courts at all, and

it's just that we literally never put an operative from either political party on the highest court in the land. in his speeches, brett kavanaugh has left not so suddennal bread crumbs about how he would rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate which is really the linchpin of the a.c.a. in a lecture at the heritage foundation, he highlighted that a majority of the supreme court agreed that, quote, the individual mandate best read could not be sustained as constitutional. to him the chief justice upheld the a.c.a. only because he tried too hard to avoid deciding the constitutional issue. the whole speech is about how judge kavanaugh would not try te constitutional issue. the risk that he will try to vote to strike down the health care law is not a hypothetical. there were a lot of what people -- what most people in the bar thought were rather

unserious challenges to the affordable care act in various circuit courts across the country. but i think we have learned that the supreme court has an interest in the affordable care act, maybe even a kind of unhealthy obsession with the affordable care act. and so the idea that these seemingly frivolous lawsuits will not be successful i think is belied by the enthusiasm with which the supreme court wants to take these circuit court decisions which are getting appealed and rule on them. challenges to the a.c.a. could come before the supreme court as early as this term. and so i think it's really important for people to remember that, listen, we all have our talking points, both sides of the aisle. i understand that. it is not a theoretical risk. it is a real risk that a.c.a. is gutted, that the individual mandate is gutted, that protections for people with preexisting conditions is

gutted, that what they call essential health benefits could fall away, that the whole architecture of our health care system could be gutted in this turn. i'm also voting no because kavanaugh puts corporations above people. and again, it's not a rhetorical flourish. this is most apparent in his opinions about the environment. i want you to know about a case which -- which concern the e.p.a.'s authority to regulate mercury emissions. the mercury rule was based on decades of research that showed the devastating health impacts of mercury on the brain, on the lungs, and on fetuses. the obama administration found that the mercury rule prevented as many as 11,000 premature deaths by reducing heart and lung disease. now, let's be clear. it happened during the obama administration, but this is the e.p.a. these are professional

scientists and researchers. these are civil servants. they are not like obama appointees who have some ax to grind with a particular chemical. they just found that this chemical is dangerous to people. the e.p.a. was directed by law to study -- to regulate emissions, quote, if appropriate and necessary. that's the strdz. if appropriate and necessary. judge kavanaugh thought the mercury rule was inappropriate because it didn't take into account the cost to the electric utilities to implement. think about that. you see a law and it says regulate emissions where appropriate and necessary, and then you're a judge and you read that law, and you say, listen, agency. you didn't think about the corporations enough. so somehow that's violative of the law. to arrive at his decision, he substituted his own judgment as to what is appropriate.

for e.p.a., appropriate means saving 11,000 lives. for judge kavanaugh it meant not imposing too many costs on polluters. he has and will continue to fight any attempt by the e.p.a. to keep up with evolving threats to public health from polluted air and water and from climate change. even though supreme court precedent was clear that greenhouse gases fit with the clean air act's capacious definition of air pollutant. in other words, greenhouse gases are a pollutant. everybody knows that. it's not in dispute either among scientists or among regular people who understand that climate change is real. but judge kavanaugh pushed back when the majority of the d.c. circuit followed this precedent in another e.p.a. case he dissented. the conservative justices on the supreme court were convinced and they voted 5-4 to strike down the e.p.a.'s rule. there will be a lot more of that

when judge kavanaugh joins them. when judge kavanaugh is confirmed, he will use a far-right doctrine to block federal agencies from protecting americans' health and safety. he wants to do away with something called chevron deference which prevents judges from substituting their judgment for that of congress or a federal agency. here's how it works. congress passes a law. it -- you know, you can't -- especially as it relates to regulations about pollutants, you know, we don't know exactly -- we don't know all the science. so what we say is, for instance, keep the air clean. keep the water clean. you, agency, figure out what is most important to ban, regulate, otherwise monitor. so it delegates that authority to federal agencies which have the technical expertise and knowledge to implement and enforce the law. without that authority, we wouldn't have rules to protect our air and water from pollution. we wouldn't be able to regulate

access to new dangerous drugs. we wouldn't have rules to protect consumers from unsafe or predatory products and services because everything is supposed to be legislative. if you don't believe in chevron deference, then we're supposed to every year come up with a new list of chemicals to ban or not ban. what do we know about that? seriously, what do we know about that? and do you think maybe the lobbyists might be involved in that process more so than if you let the administrative agencies do that? i don't -- for the life of me, i don't understand -- i mean, i do understand why people want to get rid of chevron deference but i don't understand the legal justification for it. the reason they want to get rid of chevron deference, is it makes life safer for big corporations and less safe for the rest of us. i'd -- a vote for judge kavanaugh would be a vote against chevron deference. it would allow judges to decide what a law means without

considering congress' intentions or listening to the agency. perhaps most worrisome for me is judge kavanaugh's views on executive power. the context here is the federalist society provided a list to donald trump. and donald trump said looks good to me as part of his sort of solidifying the primary. and then judge kavanaugh got added at the end. i mean, after the initial list was established, one person got added at the end. and in terms of their jurisprudence, there's not a big difference between judge kavanaugh and the rest of the people on the list, but here's the difference. judge kavanaugh has a very unique view of executive authority and what a president is subjected to in terms of the law. in his writings and rulings, he's made clear that he thinks a president can choose not to

follow the law if he thinks it's unconstitutional. can you imagine? that a president can just say that law is unconstitutional so i refuse to enforce it? congress couldn't do anything about it because it would all go to the supreme court where judge kavanaugh sits. you think donald trump might like that idea? i think donald trump might like that idea. and judge kavanaugh thinks that the president is literally above the law, not just in terms of not enforcing statutes passed by the united states congress. he's made it clear in speeches and writings that he does not think a president can or should be investigated or indicted for criminal offenses while in office. he said that maybe nixon was wrongly decided referring to the united states v. nixon. it's a 1974 decision in which the supreme court unanimously held that president nixon had to comply with a subpoena to turn over the tapes of his

conversations in the white house. and he wrote in the minnesota law review in 2009 that he thinks a president shouldn't be indicted for breaking the law. let me repeat that. he wrote in the minnesota law review in 2009 that he thinks a sitting president shouldn't be indicted for breaking the law. now near as i can tell, i'm not a lawyer, but near as i can tell, this is the main difference between judge kavanaugh's views and the rest of the people on the federalist society list. i mean, the head of the federalist society said before judge kavanaugh was nominated and he was asked, do you have any favorites, he said anyone on this list would be great. it's just weird to me that the president of the united states picked this guy, a bush person, not normally his preference to pick a bush person. but this person has this really specific view about how powerful a president should be.

and that is really worrisome. he also wrote there's a serious constitutional question -- i'm paraphrasing. there's a serious constitutional question regarding whether a president can be criminally indicted and tried while in office. this is the tip of the iceberg. judge kavanaugh has also asserted that the president has absolute authority to pardon all offenders for any crime at any time, even before a trial or a charge, even before he or she is charged. does he mean all offenders? even the president? judge kavanaugh may have refused to answer this question at the hearing, but his expansive view of executive power speaks for him. his view puts the president above the law. and this is dangerous because right now special counsel robert mueller is in the middle of an investigation into the president's campaign. instead of following supreme court case law, judge kavanaugh may try to undermine that investigation and stop attempts

to subpoena the president or to collect evidence. in the context, of course, sometimes we in the senate pretend not to know things that we know. a lot of smart people here, but we sometimes don't say what's actually going on which is everybody knows, even people who are loyal to him or people who pretend to be loyal to him but privately grouse about him, the president demands loyalty to him not to the constitution, not to the country. the president is a person who demands personal loyalty. he could have picked anybody but he picked brett kavanaugh, the one judge who believes the president is above the law and should be left alone. these issues have been clear since the nomination. that's why i've pledged to vote no. others came to light last week when the whole country had the chance to hear from dr. christine blasey ford and

judge kavanaugh. what we saw i think was alarming for a lot of people. whatever your view on all the stuff i just talked about actually, we saw behavior that was just weird. it was kind of manic. it was angry. it was wild eyed. it was threatening. i mean, we talk -- listen, i was in the state house of representatives. i wasn't in a position to do advice and consent, even on state judges. so i hadn't dug into what the criteria were when you're considering a judge. so when i got to the senate, i'm in my sixth year, there are a lot of conversations about judicial temperament. you think about qualifications. you want to make sure the views aren't too extreme and then you think about temperament. this thing about temperament is being totally ignored by the majority. because if you care at all about

temperament, if you care at all about the idea of equal justice for all, if you care -- and we're so close to the united states supreme court physically right now. if you care about that magnificent building and the idea that anybody going before that highest court in the land is going to get a fair shake, it is just vanishingly unlikely that if you're with the national resources defense council or planned parenthood or move on or whoever he views as part of this sort of like attempt to smear him, they're going to go to court and they're going to be a litigant and they're going to be looking at judge kavanaugh going, oh, yeah, he's undecided. and this is the important thing. some people will argue that he's going to be an even-handed jurist, that he sort of lost his cool but he cleaned it up in this most recent "wall street

journal" editorial. maybe. i don't think so. i think it's implausible. but the point is, he cannot even appear -- you're not supposed to even appear to be anything less than impartial. and that -- you know, he ripped the mask off. again, he's a republican. that's fiefnlt i get along -- -- that's fine. i get along with republicans, not all of them, but i get along with republicans. and he can have those views but once you start articulating partisan views, especially in the nomination process, then the mask is off. and you don't belong on the court. you have to display the proper temperament on and off the bench at all times. and what that means is in dealings with one's colleagues on the bench, having an open mind, being respectful of a colleague's views, being respectful of the lawyers who come before the court and not treating them disrespectfully,

to have proper respect for the lawyers in the court. i'm quoting judge kavanaugh, and i did not see that judge kavanaugh last week. i just want to make one minor point about that. whatever we think of that "wall street journal" editorial, debides the fact -- besides the fact there was no actual apology, it wasn't like a spur of the moment thing where he kind of lost i said a few things that he didn't mean to say. he wrote the speech the day before. that screed was what he wanted to say. that's what he intended to say. so it's not like the passion of -- i've said lots of things i wish i didn't say. but generally when i write them down, i can't -- -- i can't fairly characterize it as a mistake. maybe i stumbled. maybe i shouldn't have said one paragraph but that whole thing was a mess. that whole thing was an emotional mess. and that actually should have

been disqualifying. and that should have been the moment where members of the republican party just went over and said listen, we've got 18 conservative judges. any of them could get confirmed. this guy is not right for the bench. this guy is going to be bad for the institution of the court. i want to talk a little bit about the federalist society, an organization with a mission to alter the legal landscape in the united states. for decades the federalist society has worked to remake the federal judiciary. with a view of the power of corporations, executive authority, social conservatism, and the protection of privilege, that was out of the legal mainstream. as amanda hollis brusky, a professor of politics at pamono college and the author of ideals with consequence, a study of the federalist society said the idea was to train, credential and

socialize a generation of alternative elites. and this is because we had republican presidents who would nominate and get confirmed justices that were republican but not as reliably conservative as they wanted. so the federalist society formed for the purpose of saying, you know, we're not going to get fooled again. we want our stuff. we want our outcomes. we don't actually want you to fairly consider the law and the constitution and just call balls and strikes and all that. that's what they say, but they set up this apparatus to do the opposite, to be very outcome oriented and to be very conservative. and that's what the federalist society has done. the nomination is the latest success story of this ambitious enterprise and his confirmation will unfortunately entrench these judicial views in the supreme court for decades to come. while his views on some issues are known, the senate and the american people still don't have

a full picture of who he is, and that's because at every turn there has been a concerted effort to hide the documents. this feels like ten weeks ago, but before the last scandal, what i thought was terribly scandalous was that this man had been in public life. that he worked for the government. there are tons of records of that, right? you can foia it. most of it is archived because he worked in the white house. and in the end, the committee didn't receive 95% of the documents related to his public life. now, we're not talking about a fishing expedition. we're not talking about -- we're talking about when he worked in the white house, what are the records of that? we didn't get to see any of it. it was in my view a misuse of the process on the judiciary committee related to what's considered committee

confidential. in the past, committee confidential essentially means anything that's kind of personally sensitive or anything that is either secret or top secret. and committee confidential, like it's a narrow thing. but what they decided to do is say 95% of -- of all the records, we just don't get to see. the united states senate doesn't get to review -- and the public doesn't get to review 95% of the records related to brett kavanaugh's public service. these are the reasons why i find it hard to believe that judge kavanaugh is going to have a successful vote tomorrow, and i do understand he is going to have a successful vote -- oh, i guess it's today. we're 3:00 in the morning. judge kavanaugh's judicial record, his temperament, his

views on executive power should be enough to scare away most members of this body. you know, this is a dark day for the senate. but more important than that, i mean i worry very much about this institution. i worry about the way we have conducted ourselves. i worry about a bastardization of this process. i worry about our ability to come back together. i worry about the senate's traditional role, when it's working, is to calm everybody down, is to deal with stuff that's hard. and it seems to me that at every stage instead of being the cooling saucer, right, instead of being a place where we could deal with tough issues, we serve

to inflame the passions of folks on both sides to cause pain across the country and to not get to the truth. but more important than the institutional aspect, it's a dark day for vulnerable people. women in particular, people of color, indigenous peoples, people with preexisting conditions, people who struggle economically, union members. the country is feeling torn apart and the senate has traditionally played a role in calming tensions down, moving methodically and being fair, and this process is not that. we need another nominee. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: