the individual says how you vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination is one of the most crucial votes you will cast. please vote no. prior to hearing this round of hearings, i was concerned about his ability to be truthful. now as a survivor, i am fearful for the entire female population. i urge you to vote no for all of those reasons. letter number 25-i believe dr. dr. christine blasey ford. i do not believe a man who could have is stifled a frightened woman's screams while he felt entitled to put his hands on her

body without her permission. i do not believe such a person is fit for one of the highest courts in our country. she took a lie detector test. he did not. she called for an f.b.i. investigation. he did not. she was calm and collected. he was not. as a sexual assault survivor and your constituent, i implore you to stand with women. letter 26 -- thank you for fighting. i was a victim of sexual assault at age 12. i am now 71.

i remember it vividly. it has affected my whole life. if kavanaugh is confirmed, we'll put a horrible man on our highest court. letter 27 -- thank you for highlighting the serious deficiencies in the process of president trump's nominee kavanaugh to the supreme court.

i am heartened by your efforts and like-minded members of congress who have joined the 21st century, many whose eyes, hearts, and ears and mind have witnessed the scourge of sexual misconduct. i am a 58-year-old native american, native oregonian. i grew up on a catholic indian mission with both my parents and seven brothers and sisters. later in life i recalled through discussions with my younger sister that my older brothers had most likely sexually abused me when i was a very young girl, less than seven years old. i never reported it because i didn't recall it until i was in my 40's. my parents were alive and it would have destroyed them. i'm a sexual assault survivor who never told my best friend in

high school when one rape occurred. she proceeds to share information about several other assaults when she was serving in the army, and she says each time she didn't report it. all of those incidents left me fearful, feeling vulnerable, psychological damage, ptsd, emotional trauma, physical trauma, and other problems too incalculable to quantify. i think that these topics ratepayer often not discussed -- i think that these topics are often not discussed. women in our own lives may have

had experienced they have never shared with us, thinking that they might be blamed, feeling that they are ashamed, considering that they might not be believed, anticipating that they might expect that we would feel they should somehow have prevented it or somehow invited it. all of these complex sense that they will not be treated with respect and dignity as the victims they are. let us treat them with the respect and dignity when they bring forward their stories. dear senator merkley, i've never

taken the time to write a senator. with trump as president -- or having trump as president has caused depression and anxiety, but i have gritted my teeth, batoned down the hatches and tried to weather the storm. however, this saga with kavanaugh has mobilized me to speak out and protest a person of his moral ineptitude. i am a victim of sexual assault. i'm sure you're hearing the outpouring of messages like mine from hundreds of women. i am so angry and so bitter about the current environment that promotes racism, sexism,

the things i've seen voted in make me despair. rather than the senate behaving in a way that makes women despair, what if we behaved in a way that inspired, set an example, had people say, we didn't think you'd rise to the challenge because so often we've seen women mistreated when they bring forward their stories, but you shocked us because you took it seriously and you treated these women fairly? wouldn't that be a beautiful story rather than the reality of where we are right now?

letter 29 -- there are a number of viable options for this supreme court seat, individuals not accused of any crimes. and regardless of innocence or guilt, kavanaugh has shown himself to be unqualified, to remain impartial as a judge. furthermore, the backlash of there being any question of guilt regarding rape accusations is too great for him to successfully fulfill the duties of that position. it will cause a division between voters that will likely never be

healed. speaking as both a concerned voter and rape survivor, there's no legitimate reason that we cannot find another candidate for this job. if he is appointed despite these allegations, it will be all but impossible for a rape survivor to ever feel safe in the u.s. again. how could we, if an accused rapist is presiding as a member of the highest court in the country? she makes a point. there are many other people who could be considered to be brought forward. why this individual? why this individual who demonstrated such partisanship? why this individual who bent

and, yes, broke the truth many a time before the committee? why this individual who wrote offensive, mocking, accusing, disgraceful things attacking a woman in his yearbook? why this individual who chose to join a fraternity with the reputation for assaulting women? why this individual who chose to join a secret society with a similar reputation? why this individual with whom credible women have come forward and shared their stories of assault? and why this individual when we

have the full opportunity to have considered the corroborating information from 28 individuals that they asked that we talk to and we didn't? there's still time to reject this nomination and somehow restore the tarnished reputation that's the product of the behavior of this body during this nomination process. letter number 30 -- i am 66 years old, nearly 67,

and can tell you exactly what occurred when i was a victim of sexual assault and attempted rape at age 16. it was burned into my memory and will forever be a part of me. i continue to be shaken to the core that anyone would explain such behavior as normal part of young men growing up. it is unconscionable, unacceptable, and must no longer be ignored.

dear senator merkley -- letter number 31 -- i am reaching out to you as a survivor of teenage rape. like so many other survivors, i have been following the events surrounding judge kavanaugh's nomination with so much emotion that i cannot really begin to express it. i do not believe that i need to ask you to say no if when it comes to a floor vote, but want you to add my voice to the many who are speaking out in the hope that the country will listen. sexual assault affects millions of girls, boys, women, and men.

too many of us live our lives in shame and silence, disbelieved if not outright blamed. nearly 30 years have passed since a fellow student at my small-town high school took my innocence to then proceed and then publicly shame me. people believed him, not me. this has to stop. people need to realize that we may forget some details, but we will never -- never forget what happened. and when we know the perpetrator, we will never forget his name. he may grow old, his appearance may change, but his name will

remain etched in our brains forever. she goes on to say that putting kavanaugh on the court means, quote, telling all of us, the countless millions, that we do not matter. and she closes by saying, we matter. i matter. yes, you do. and when you say that you are

adding your voice to the many who are speaking out in the hope that the country will listen, i commend you -- commend you for being brave enough to share your story and to ask those in this chamber to listen. but so far they have not listened because listening would mean to treat with respect and dignity the women coming forward. listening would mean to give these women the opportunity not just to present their case, their experience, but have those who can corroborate their information come before a judiciary committee and share their stories. listening would mean insisting that the f.b.i. actually talk to

the across the board -- talk to the those who corroborate actually than not talk to them. so you have not been listened to, i am sorry to report. but there is still time. for someone, for several people to say we've reflected on the situation and realize how unfair and unjust we have been, how much we add to the trauma of millions of women by not listening to the women who have come forward, not taking them seriously, rigging the system as they feared would happen. this individual writes, i have

a voice even if those screams were stifled inside of me so long ago, today that voice says kavanaugh is not fit to be a member of the supreme court. beyond the details of what transpired when he was a teenager, his atrocious display during thursday's hearing should disqualify him outright. integrity, level-headedness, respect for the rule of law, lack of partisan bias should be fundamental requirements of any justice. kavanaugh did not display those traits. his confirmation would stain the senate and judiciary for years to come.

i will conclude by saying that dr. ford's incredible courage has helped me more than any therapy session. she spoke. in speaking her truth to power, she spoke for all of us. i have shed so many tears watching and following these proceedings. but finally feel like i can stand tall, that i do not need to hide or live in shame. her story is in so many ways my story, the smart girl who loved math and somehow made it through stanford, completed a ph.d., and embarked in a career in

research despite the trauma that followed. all too often we hide behind a smile and a mask of strength so that people do not see that inside we cannot stop shaking. lawmakers would be well advised to not underestimate the strength of our power when we raised our heads, shed our shame and reclaim our voices. we may tremble, but we will speak. we will be heard and we will not be dismissed. letter number 32, i am a victim

of sexual abuse as a child. raped as a young adult and sexual harassment during my professional career. i am also a successful practicing child adolescent and adult psychiatrist with 20-plus years of experience. since miss ford's testimony, i saw two female walk-in patients, one of whom revealed to me her own sexual assault which occurred around the time ofmiss ford's. she confessed this is the first time she's told anyone about this. the other woman i saw that day told a similar story. from the press, i understand crisis lines lit up all over our

nation, doubling the traffic in some cases. i write because i am worried. the press reports that only two of the three women making complaints will be interviewed by the f.b.i. i am concerned that only two of the three alleged victims will be heard. to establish a pattern, the f.b.i. must include as many credible victims and witnesses as possible, particularly given the timelines and deadlines they're up against. statistics on rape in the united states are shockingly high, higher even than many less developed countries. she was concerned the f.b.i. would not be able to speak and

interview those who could corroborate the experiences. it turned out far worse than she could ever imagined. zero for 28. zero out of 28. not while we talked to 5 out of 28. not we talked to 8 out of 28. but the f.b.i., zero out of 28. not because the f.b.i. would choose to do that but because they could only talk to people if they were allowed to talk to by the president's scoping instructions. and those instructions were not to talk to anyone who had credible supporting information. that is such a violation of fairness, of due process, of

justice. there is that beautiful set of words carved into the front of the supreme court: equal justice under law. wouldn't anyone who had the right character to serve there have insisted, insisted that these women get fair treatment? but we didn't hear judge kavanaugh insisting. he didn't even want an f.b.i. investigation. he certainly didn't insist on there being one that actually talked to the people who had information. you know, if your conscience is clean, if your life experience is clear, you don't fear an

investigation. this letter goes on -- furthermore, our congress and our senate do not reflect the 50.5% of americans who are female. in 2017, female representation by gender in congress and the senate was far lower in the u.s. than in germany, than in france, than in the united kingdom, than in sweden, than in belgium, the netherlands and spain. she cites the -- sources, interparliamentary union on national parliaments. as a result we rely on men to understand this predominantly female problem.

american women depend on your gallantry to ensure that our government does right by us. i plead with you to persuade our leaders to do the right thing, think of your mother, your wife, your daughter and the women you love. show us we are valued as you make your phone calls, know american women watch with fear and hope. don't let us down. did we treat dr. ford and debbie ramirez as the way we would want our mother, our wife, our daughter or the women we love to be treated? no, we did not. she wrote asking for us to not let her down, and we have let her down. there is only one appropriate

thing to do, and that is not to send this man who has bent and broken the truth many times before the u.s. senate to the supreme court, not to send this man who has credible accusations of sexual assault that we were unwilling to investigate, not to send him to the court. the next letter notes, as a sexual assault survivor, it's essential to me that no person who perpetuates such crime ever sits in a position of power ever again. that kind of sums it up.

this is letter number 34. she says i'm a 52-year-old proud oregonian woman, and i too am a victim and survivor of sexual abuse and sadly a member of the me too club. should you confirm judge kavanaugh, you'll be disrespecting every me too victim in america, young or old. victims of abuse are across the spectrum. no doubt probably also in your families. judge kavanaugh is a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, an interviewee. he is not the victim. i did find it, by the way, so disturbing to hear colleagues

treat the women who come forward as the criminals and treat the nominee as the victim. that's exactly the type of inversion that women fear. that's exactly the type of reversal that has women deciding that they will never get a fair hearing. and it's exactly what happened right here in the u.s. senate. the letter continues, mrs. ford was brave in her testimony, but all of you on the judiciary committee, wake up. it is 2018. , not 1991 with clarence thomas. we now acknowledge and believe victims that come forward to tell their stories.

they're her-stories. we will never forget your actions in this confirmation process. well, the writer saying it's 2018, not 1991. and yet, we treated dr. ford and debbie ramirez worse, worse than we treated anita hill in 1991. letter number 35, letters from oregon constituents writing in to share their anger, their angst, their concern, their desire that women coming forward be treated fairly, their desire that we treat them seriously

enough to actually talk to corroborating witnesses. and yet, unfortunately, we did not. so in letter 35, the woman says i am also a victim of sexual assault when i was in graduate school. i never pursued that due to fear of consequences and feeling that this was my fault. this has to stop. number 36 -- senator merkley, i write to you today to urge you to vote no on the kavanaugh nomination. the time has come for women to have a say in this society that men will listen to.

i am a victim of sexual abuse. my case happened when i was 22. i never told anyone about my experience until i remarried 39 years ago. i have an 8-year-old granddaughter and i pray she will not ever have to battle someone to save herself. i am now 75, and i remember the exact time and place this incident occurred. one doesn't forget. letter number 37. i myself am a sexual assault survivor.

i listened to the testimony of dr. blasey ford last thursday. it was clear to me that her testimony was credible. the likelihood she may not accurately recall the identity of her assailant who was known to her before the assault is extremely improbable. trust me. it is not the sort of detail an assault victim forgets. the likelihood, on the other hand, that brett kavanaugh may have fail to remember assaulting a woman when inebriated is quite probable. not only does excessive alcohol consumption dull the memory, but males that think so little of women that they would thus assault them are likely to suffer from lack of memory as it is inconsequential. i encourage you to work tireless to encourage your colleagues to vote no on kavanaugh's

confirmation. his integrity and character are in serious question. he showed a total lack of judicial temperament. i urge you to stand up. now, i know these letters didn't just come to individuals on this side of the aisle, but i ask my colleagues have you read the letters that you received asking you to take seriously the experiences shared by dr. ford and by deborah ramirez, and have you taken them seriously? did you insist that their corroborating witnesses be interviewed because the president's team says they consulted with the senate leadership on how the f.b.i. investigation should be done, and we now know that the way it

was done, none of the 28 corroborating witnesses were talked to, none. did you take seriously the woman in your home state who wrote to you the way the women in my home state wrote to me? letter 38. if the f.b.i. investigation is limited to ford and ramirez's allegations, it excludes the third credible allegation of avenatti's client. it is wrong to cherry pick credibility. i emphatically state that this third allegation reflects my personal experience. i do not divulge this lightly. it happened to me when i was 14. it was both legally and morally wrong, and i never reported it. this was in 1971 in southern

california. it was a recurrent event before i came to learn that others were victimized in the same manner. rendered unconscious in order to be engaged without consent. it seems incredible that i would end up attending other gatherings where individuals participating in such activities would also be but in fact this is my experience as well. one of my sisters nine years younger recounted that this culture existed during her high school years in a party environment in northern california. in these environments, there are certain coalitions of males who covertly foster these environments and the victim is typically isolated in some back room or even some hotel room. please maintain my anonymity but take seriously into consideration my deeply personal

account. there are many qualified jurists who possess the appropriate qualities to sit on the highest court of america. that was letter 38. so many more letters poured into my office, saying take our experiences seriously. take seriously the voices of drt this institution has failed them i ask you are you comfortable voting? i asked you are you comfortable voting for this nomination when

this body did not hear from the individuals who had corroborated information, did not invite them to testify? even that was done in 1991. are you comfortable voting to support this nomination when the f.b.i. investigation was limited by a scoping document that excluded having interviews with any of the people, the 28 people put forward by the two victims for information that would support them? why are you comfortable with that? because you shouldn't be. you shouldn't be comfortable voting for a nominee under a shadow of allegations that we didn't even bother to explore. it confirms everything that women across this country fear,

that when they come forward and share their story, they will not be taken seriously, the system will be rigged, they will be blamed, everything they saw in the way the senate handled this situation. it is shameful and embarrassing and beneath the dignity of this body that should have given a stellar example of how to respect and investigate but did not. my colleague from new york has arrived to share her thoughts. i thank her for her strong and fierce defense of women across this country who have suffered so much and been silenced so often in fear that they would be disrespected, and the two women who came forward, debbie ramirez

and dr. ford, they feared they would be disrespected and this body confirmed every fear they had. so let us not vote to put on the court of the united states of america, the supreme court of the united states an individual who bent and broke the truth many times before the committee, an individual with a record even as we know from his high school and college years of abusing women, an individual of arrogance and anger, an individual with partisan sentiments, an individual who thinks the president is beyond the law, an individual who finds time after time for the powerful

over the people. that is not the person who should be confirmed to serve on the supreme court of the united states of america. thank you, madam president. and:

madam president, today and these past several weeks have been deeply painful for many in this country. today is a painful day for millions of women all across the country who are rightly worried about losing their basic civil rights. it is a painful day for the brave and courageous survivors who have had to relive their trauma, and in some cases have found the courage to tell their

story for the very first time. it's also a painful day for men who hope to see this senate stand on the right side of history. today in just a few hours, the united states senate is going to turn its back on righteousness. it's going to turn its back on fairness and reason. and make no mistake, it is going to turn its back on women. what we have seen over the last few weeks is an exercise of power. who has it and who does it? rather than a search for the truth, we have seen those in power ram through a nominee who is unfit to serve on the supreme

court. ultimately, this is about the power structure of america, but it's changing, and it's changing fast. i want to say something right here from the senate floor to every woman in america who is listening. i hear you. many of my colleagues in the senate hear you. we hear your stories, we hear your voices, and we will be certain they will not go unheard. i have heard from constituents all across my state. i have been talking to people for the last several months. and i have been talking to people specifically about this nominee for the past several weeks. i have heard from friends who

have been sexually assaulted. i have heard from friends whose daughters have been sexually assaulted. i have heard from people who are outraged about what is happening in this country right now, outraged at a process that doesn't seek the truth and doesn't seem to be fair. and unfortunately it's a moment when survivors are having to relive the worst moments of their lives in real time by just watching the news. so i'm going to read a little bit of information that was submitted to the senate judiciary committee on septemben from end rape on campus. she writes a very heartfelt letter about her own trauma, about her own experience with sexual violence, and about the representation that she provides from her organization. she writes we envision a world

in which each individual has an educational experience free from violence, and until then that all fivers are believed, trusted, and point of order. each year, we assist nearly a thousand survivors and their families directly, conduct educational campaigns, support student activists, and advocate for policy reform efforts that reach millions of individuals. she asks, how many more viral online moments must be created before an incredible harm and trauma we've experienced is enough to be taken seriously when a survivor comes forward? and why is the burden always shifted to those who have experienced the harm? she says that an american is sexually assaulted every 98

seconds. just imagine how many lives are being destroyed. she says that more than an estimated 17,700,000 women and 2.8 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape since 1998. 3 million college students will be sexually assaulted this fall alone. 18,900 military service members bravely serving our country experience sexual assault in 2014, and one in every four voters in the united states is a survivor, more than half of all voters in the united states know a survivor. survivors make up a significant portion of each united states senator's constituencies and survivors everywhere deserve to know that if they come forward, they will be taken seriously.

i received hundreds of calls, thousands of calls, hundreds of letters, and i've read some of those letters this morning, and they're so disturbing and so upsetting, and i can't imagine what that must be like to deal with in this moment that we're in. when you have members of the senate who either don't believe credible survivors or if they do believe them, they don't care. but for every survivor out there who feels that she is not being heard, not being listened to, not being believed, i want you to know that there are those of us here who do believe you, who have heard you and will fight for you. your voices are being heard, and they do matter.

and your willingness to protest, to stand tall, to speak out, and to speak clearly over these last few weeks has been extraordinary. it's been powerful. it's been meaningful. it's made a difference. so do not fear that what you have done was a waste of time. do not fear that speaking out doesn't matter, because it does. and the energy and at inspiration -- and the inspiration that you have created is going to drive this movement forward. i also want to talk a little bit about why brett kavanaugh should not be serving on the supreme court, why he doesn't deserve this seat. and i want to talk a lot about his record and what we know about brett kavanaugh as an individual. over these last few weeks we've

learned a lot about this nominee, even before we found out that more than one woman had accused judge kavanaugh of sexual assaulting her. his judicial record was already clear, and many of us made our decisions to oppose judge kavanaugh based on that record, that judicial record and statements alone. that was the first reason i opposed him, because i have no doubt that he will undermine women's rights on the supreme court. i'll say more about his judicial record in a moment, but what we all saw and heard over the last few weeks isn't something that you can actually discern from a judicial record. more than one woman has come forward with sworn statements under penalty of perjury, saying that brett kavanaugh committed acts of sexual misconduct against them. one of them, dr. blasey ford,

even bravely testified before the senate judiciary committee. she was under oath, and she relived one of the worst moments of her life on national television. and she was credible. i believed her. when my colleagues asked her what she remembered most clearly, her strongest memory was the laughter. she said, indelible in the hippo campus is the laughter, the last, the occupy -- the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. she said, quote, they were laughing with each other, and she said, quote, i was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends, two friends having a really good time with one

another. and, madam president, she was direct, and she did not evade any questions. she did not duck or dodge like someone who is trying to hide the truth. when my colleagues asked her with what degree of certainty did she believe that brett kavanaugh assaulted her, she said, 100%. when i was watching her testimony sitting there in the room, there are -- were many mos when her testimony brought me to tears. i thought the way she opened was particularly moving. she said i am here today not because i want to be. i'm terrified. i'm here because i believe it is

my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. i agonize daily with this decision throughout august and early september 2018. the sense of duty that motivated me to reach out confidentially to "the washington post", represents eschoo's office and senator feinstein's office was always there, but the my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to increase. during august 2018, the press reported that mr. kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. his allies painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. i believed if i came forward my voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. by the time the confirmation hearings, i had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the senate make their decision without knowing what mr. kavanaugh had done to me.

at the same time my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than i expected. apart from the assault itself, these last couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i had to relive my trauma in front of the entire world and seen my life picked apart by people on television, in the media and in this body who have never met or spoken with me. i have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. those who say that do not know me. i'm a fiercely independent person and i am no one's pawn. my motivation in coming forward was to provide the facts about how mr. kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life so that you can take that into serious consideration as you make your decisions about how to proceed. it is not my responsibility to determine whether kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell the

truth. that's a woman of extraordinary humility and extraordinary courage. i want to compare dr. blasey ford's testimony to judge kavanaugh's testimony right after her. we all saw it. some of my colleagues have suggested that because multiple women were making very credible accusations against judge kavanaugh that he had a right to be angry, that he was right to come out strong and fight back, like a politician would. really? is that how a judge is supposed to act? not according to judge kavanaugh. i want to quote from a law review article he wrote two years ago about how a good judge is supposed to act, quote, to be a good judge and a good umpire, it's critical that you have the proper demeanor. we must walk in the shoes of other judges, the lawyers and

the parties. it's important to understand them to keep our emotions in check, to be calm amidst the storm, to put it in the vernacular, to be a good umpire and a good judge, don't be a jerk. mr. president, judge kavanaugh would have been well served to listen to his own advice. i was shocked by his tirade against my colleagues and my party. i was disturbed by its vindictiveness, his animosity. i once quote from his testimony to remind you of what he said at his hearing. every time i hear these words i'm in disbelief a nominee of the supreme court said them to the judiciary committee in prepared testimony under oath. he said, quote, this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with the apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016

election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars and money from outside left-wing opposition groups. madam president, supreme court justices are supposed to be thinking about the law and only the law. not elections, not political parties. but now we know exactly what judge kavanaugh is thinking about. he's thinking about politics. he's thinking about left-wing conspiracies. he's thinking about the 2016 election and trump and the clintons. madam president, those aren't my words. those are his words, his testimony. he said them directly to the committee under oath while the entire nation was watching. he showed us his true colors. he showed us what he does when he's under pressure.

he showed us how he really feels about our politics and our political parties, even though he said he always stays far away from politics, because judges aren't supposed to go there. he showed us what he really thinks deep down when his back is against a wall. think about that, madam president. a sitting federal judge, a nominee to the supreme court shouted, shouted about democrats trying to take him down. it makes me wonder, even if you love every judicial decision this judge has ever written, how can any of my colleagues argue after hearing that tirade that this judge is unbiased? it makes me wonder how any of my colleagues can ignore that fact. it makes me wonder to my colleagues who are so desperate to confirm brett kavanaugh at all costs, what decisions by

this judge are you so eager to see? what do you already know about how this supposedly fair-minded judge is going to rule that you would risk the court's reputation by putting such a blatant partisan on the bench? a retired supreme court justice, john paul stevens, who was appointed by a republican, even came so far as to change his mind and oppose judge kavanaugh. why? because judge kavanaugh is now clearly biased. he said, quote, he has demonstrated a potential bias involving potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform its full responsibilities. and i think there is merit in that criticism and that the senators should really pay attention to it. for the good of the court, it's

not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job. i agree with that, madam president. when the next big gerrymandering case comes before the supreme court, we already know how judge kavanaugh feels about democrats because we heard it directly from him at the hearing. so we can't expect him to rule fairly in that case. or what if a forced arbitration case relating to sexual harassment comes before the court? we all heard judge kavanaugh say under oath that credible allegations of sexual assault are nothing but a left-wing conspiracy. so we can't expect him to rule fairly on that one either. there are real consequences to the bias and partisanship and anger that judge kavanaugh showed at his hearing. i'm incredibly disappointed by this, and i hope my colleagues think about this one last time

before they cast their votes. today. i'd like to talk a little bit about his record as a judge. whose side does he take? who does he believe? in one case, in a dissent, judge kavanaugh said that employers should not have to give their workers insurance that covers border patrol if they -- birth control if they don't want to. in other words, he thinks a boss' religion is more important than a worker's religion. does that sound fair to you, madam president? in another case, he had to decide whether a pregnant teenaged immigrant girl should be allowed to have an abortion. he made her wait for nine weeks before he said no, and then he was overruled by his judicial colleagues. he said that he didn't think

that he -- he said that he didn't think what he did to the girl was an undue burden. does that sound fair to you? let's not forget president trump said he wanted the new supreme court justice to overturn roe v. wade, that he wanted to nominate someone who would automatically vote to overturn it. he chose brett kavanaugh to get the job done. mr. president, if this chamber confirms judge kavanaugh, i have no doubt the supreme court will take away women's reproductive rights. i have no doubt that the supreme court will move to tell women that they aren't allowed, aren't allowed to make their own decisions with their own doctors about their own health. and i want to speak about another part of his record. judge kavanaugh wrote an opinion that the president doesn't like

a law, that a president could ignore the law and ignore the courts. this is what he said. and, mr. president, as you listen to this, let me know if you think this was judicially sound judgment. he wrote -- under the constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional. even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. anyone with the most basic understanding of how our constitutional system of government works knows that this is not what our founding fathers designed. anyone who isn't paying attention to president trump's attacks on our institutions and his repeated attempts to undermine the mueller investigation should be alarmed

by that statement alone. it makes me think president trump's choice for this nominee was because he wanted to be protected from the mueller investigation. i'm also deeply concerned about judge kavanaugh's record on money and politics. it should come as no surprise that judge kavanaugh is on the side of big money and interests that are currently polluting our political system. judge kavanaugh was handpicked by white house counsel don mcgahn, a commissioner who is notorious for his hostility toward campaign finance laws. indeed, president trump is nominating nominees in the mold of justice scalia.

like mcgahn and justice scalia, kavanaugh has made his opposition to campaign finance laws clear during his time on our d.c. circuit. in 2001, kavanaugh authored an opinion that would allow foreign nationals -- and listen to this -- to spend unlimited funds on issue ads in u.s. elections. let me say that again. allow foreign nationals to spend unlimited funds on issue ads in u.s. elections. that's the blueman versus f.e.c. provision. people in the united states who wanted to make campaign contributions to u.s. candidates in the federal elections. although kavanaugh upheld provisions of federal election law banning them from contributing directly to a party, kavanaugh found that federal election law, quote,

does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. under his reading of federal election law in blueman, kavanaugh would only take issue with a small fraction of the election meddling perpetrated by russian operatives indicted by special counsel mueller. at his confirmation hearing, judge kavanaugh was given the opportunity to directly address the possibility that his decision in blueman opened the door for, quote, vladimir putin to buy issue ads in american elections. judge kavanaugh's response to senator white house was misleading, indicating that the supreme court affirmed the case unanimously, which while true as to foreign contributions to candidates was not true on the point of issue ads. indeed, judge kavanaugh's response to a question from --

for the record from senator coons also revealed his misleading response to senator whitehouse's question. he wrote, quote, the challengers in blueman did not seek to make contributions to organizations that make expenditures on issue ads. the opinion made clear that the court's holding does not address whether congress might bar foreign nationals living temporarily in the united states from issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy. the supreme court unanimously affirmed the decision. judge kavanaugh seeks to have it both ways. he brags about his opinion being unanimously upheld by the court, but when he is confronted with the real-world consequences of his decision, he hides behind the pleadings. according to special counsel mueller's indictment, the issue ads run by russian operatives seeking to meddle in the 2016

election includes the messages, quote, join our hashtag hillary clinton for 2016, end of quote. i don't want to read the others, they are so horrible. donald trump wants to defeat terrorism. hillary wants to support it. yet judge kavanaugh's looming decision would permit foreign actors to run advertisements like the ones above without consequences. in fact, legal briefs filed by lawyers for the russian operatives indicted by special counsel mueller cite kavanaugh's blewman opinion that foreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy such as what is described in the indictment. judge kavanaugh opposes limitation on big money in politics. during his confirmation hearing, judge kavanaugh was confronted with an e-mail he wrote in march, 2002, by senator klobuchar wherein he suggested

that contribution limits would be unconstitutional. quote, as i have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although i for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems. when senator klobuchar pressed judge kavanaugh on whether he believed contribution limits have constitutional problems, judge kavanaugh evaded the question and issued a nonresponsive answer. in 2016, american enterprise institute speech, kavanaugh said that political spending absolutely, end of quote, deserves first amendment production because, quote, to make your voice heard in politics, you need to raise money to be able to communicate to others in any kind of effective way. in 2009, in emily's list versus f.e.c., kavanaugh heard a challenge to multiple f.e.c. regulations restricting the use

of hard money by not-for-profit organizations in federal elections. these particular regulations were passed in striking down these regulations, kavanaugh held that nonprofit organizations are, quote, constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of getting to elected office because it's plausible that expenditures by political committees are corrupted. so these are really concerning statements to me about unlimited money and spending in politics from foreign nationals on issue ads and from money interests. i do not believe that money is speech and i do not believe that corporations should have the same free speech rights as individuals, but judge kavanaugh does. and i find that to be deeply troubling. judge kavanaugh also has a very

disturbing record when it comes to rolling back civil rights of millions of americans. in his time as a judge, brett kavanaugh has consistently sided against americans who are trying to exercise their civil rights. from voting rights to employment discrimination to rights of those with disabilities, judge kavanaugh has taken positions that perpetuate inequality. judge kavanaugh's record leaves little doubt. if confirmed to the supreme court, he will continue to roll back hard-won rights of millions of americans. as a partner of kirkland and ellis, kavanaugh was involved in rice versus cayetano which challenged hawaii's right to limit participation in an election to native hawaiians. in a brief he cowrote with roger

bork and roger klegg, kavanaugh argued that restricting participation to native hawaiians was unconstitutional. according to kavanaugh, it did not matter that hawaii's voting qualifications and elections for the office of hawaiian affairs was designed to remedy past discrimination in voting against hawaiians in hawaii. discussing that decision in an interview in 1999, judge kavanaugh said that the case is one more step along the way in what i see as an inevitable conclusion within the next 10 or 20 years when the court will say we are all one race in the eyes of government. kavanaugh's adoption of justice scalia's approach from adirand structures versus penna. in the eyes of government, we are all one race. it indicates a belief that the

government should be colorblind. under this theory, affirmative action and minority contracting requirements would be constitutionally prohibited. those are just some of the issues, mr. president, that i care about and that new yorkers care about. i am very troubled about this nominee for so many reasons -- for his record, for his beliefs, for his judicial temperament, for how he treated women senators during that hearing. when we vote on this nomination later today, mr. president, when we decide if judge kavanaugh deserves to have the privilege to serve on the supreme court, there is just one fundamental question that i believe should be on all of our minds when we make the decision. do we as a country value women?

does the supreme court value women? does the senate value women? does the president? most of all, does brett kavanaugh value women? millions of americans, millions of women are watching us today. they are waiting to see whether or not when a woman comes forward and says that he is a survivor of sexual assault, does this anybody -- do the individuals here take her seriously? do we listen to her or do we disregard her and disbelieve her and patronize her? the last two weeks have been so incredibly painful for women who

have experienced sexual trauma, for survivors all across this country. when they are watching some of the most powerful people in this country disregard dr. blasey ford, they distrust her, they disbelieve her, they devalue her. it's painful for all of them. it's painful because they are tired of seeing the same old outcome every single time. they are tired of the same old scenario where the men are believed and the women are not. they can't believe their eyes when they see two women being treated with so little respect. with less of a process than even anita hill received. one of the worst parts of this process has been that we have

been through it before almost three decades ago. anita hill sat right where dr. blasey ford did. she went through the same kind of cross-examination. she was disbelieved. she was patronized. she was disrespected. and we said that we would never put another woman through that. we said that we learned the lessons from that fiasco. and we said it would never happen again, but it did, and i really believe the process over the last few weeks was shameful. we should have learned from our mistakes, and we should be doing much better. but i can tell you, mr. president, america's women are watching. they are watching what our leaders decide to do.

they are watching who is listening and who is not. and they have made a decision that i could have never imagined or predicted. so many women in this country and men have made a decision since president trump was elected that they are going to be heard. they are going to march. they are showing up at town halls. they are showing up at federal offices. they are coming-to-washington, knocking on senate doors, speaking out, protesting, carrying signs. they are speaking their truth and they're speaking truth to power in a way they perhaps never imagined they would do. they're are upping for office -- they're run for office. over 200 women are running for congress alone as nominees of their party this year, more than

ever in the history of america. and they're working hard to right the wrongs that they see happening in this country. they know that what makes this country great, what has always made this country great is that we have cared about one another, that we are a country that believes in the golden rule, that we are a country that believes that you should care about the least among us, and that every generation has tried to make this country a more perfect union, whether it is fighting to end slavery through abolition, whether it is fighting for basic voting rights for all americans through the suffragist movement, whether it is the civil rights movement saying equality is necessary in this country and people must be protected by the law, whether it is the lgbtq equality movement to ensure that we can marry the people we love, whether it is people's desire today to ensure health care as a right and not a

privilege, this is what our country is about. and i deeply feel that the process over these last few months have turned our back on that basic desire to bring our country to more perfect union. to a place where we value one another. do we value women? unfortunately, for too many in this chamber, the answer is no. so i hope that the american people are listening. i hope they are watching. i hope they will fight for the what they believe in, their values and what this country stands for. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: thank you to my good friend, the senator from new york, for your terrific words this morning. i am so grateful to be here with you today. i rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court of the united states. from the time his nomination was announced, it has been clear to me what type of supreme court justice judge kavanaugh would be, and i firmly believe he is not the justice our country needs. appointing judge kavanaugh to the supreme court would be bad for minnesotans and bad for our country. first this morning i'd like to speak about the aspects of judge kavanaugh's record and scholarship that i find most troubling. his decisions on women's freedoms, the environment, voting rights, and his views on executive power. next, i'd like to discuss why judge kavanaugh's temperament and credibility demonstrates

that he does not merit the trust and confidence necessary for the senate to appoint him to a lifelong appointment to our nation's highest court. it i have been opposed to judge kavanaugh's nomination since the beginning because his record shows that he is far outside the mainstream of legal thought on issues that matter to minnesotans, such as women's freedoms, health care, voting rights, and the environment. and if you remember, we knew quite a lot about judge kavanaugh before he was even formally named as president trump's supreme court nominee. this is because judge kavanaugh's name was chosen from a short list prepared by the far-right federalist society and heritage foundation. this list contained 25 potential nominees who were selected because they could be trusted to fulfill president trump's repeated campaign pledge to appoint justices who would, and

i quote, automatically overturn roe v. wade and dismantle the affordable care act. and while we can assume that any nominee drawn from that short list has convinced the federalist society and the heritage foundation that they pass these two litmus tests, judge kavanaugh has a judicial record to prove it. therefore, from the time his name first appeared on president trump's short list, we knew what kind of justice he would be. one that is out of step with the american people, the legal academy, and the clear dictates of our constitution, which promises liberty and equality for all and not just the privileged few. and this is not what our country needs, especially now. a review of judge kavanaugh's record shows that it includes restricting women's freedoms, supporting efforts to suppress the votes of minorities and low-income people, reliably

siding with polluters at the expense of the public's health, and allowing unlimited dark money to influence our elections. i find this record deeply concerning. it is evidence that if confirmed, judge kavanaugh would take this country backwards, reversing course on decades of hard-won progress. and so my assessment of his judicial record was enough for me to conclude that judge kavanaugh is not the type of jurist that minnesotans need on the supreme court. in this time of unprecedented political polarization, our country needs confidence that the supreme court can fulfill the constitutional promise that we are all equal before the law. that is why i had hoped president trump would nominate a consensus justice, someone dedicated to protecting the rights of all americans. but it is clear that judge kavanaugh will not be that justice. and so i'd like to talk in more deputy about three of the reasons it is clear to me based

on his judicial record that judge kavanaugh is more dedicated to advancing a far-right partisan policy agenda than defending the equal rights of all americans. first, a judge who would let the government restrict women's access to reproductive health care is not someone who is dedicated to protecting the privacy, dignity, and freedom of all women. last year judge kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case called garza v. hargan in which he sided with the trump administration and its attempt to prevent a young immigrant woman from accessing an abortion. even though this young woman had complied with every state legal requirement, judge kavanaugh argued that the federal government could nonetheless prevent her from obtaining an abortion until she could be placed with a sponsor. now, that process is took weeks and jeopardized her ability to obtain a procedure at all.

yet in his dissent, judge kavanaugh concluded that this government-caused delay did not constitute an undue burden on this woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health care. when senator durbin questioned him about this case before the senate judiciary committee, judge kavanaugh repeated his familiar refrain that he was just following precedent. but the majority of his fellow judges on the d.c. circuit court of appeals read the supreme court's precedent on this issue very differently, as do i. in planned parenthood v. case circumstance the supreme court firmly established that our constitutional right to privacy protects women from, and i quote, unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. this has come to be known as the undue burden standard, and it means that the government is

prohibited from making laws, rules, or policies that have the, and i quote, purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. yet judge kavanaugh saw no problem with forcing this young woman to wait nine weeks to obtain the medical care she needed, the medical care that a texas judge had agreed she was competent to request and entitled to obtain. instead, in arguing that this delay was justified, judge kavanaugh implied that this young woman was incapable of making her own medical decisions because she did not have her, quote, family and friends to rely on in her decision-making process. but i trust women to make these decisions for themselves and their families. and i'm here to tell you that women do not need the government looking over their shoulders in

the examination room telling them what they can and cannot do. as the only senator who has ever worked at planned parenthood, i know that when women do not have the freedom to make their own choices about their reproductive health care, they have lost the freedom to direct their own lives, their personal lives, their family, their economic security. and so i believe that we deserve a supreme court justice who is dedicated to protecting women's rights to make their own private decisions about their reproductive health care. but based on his dissent in the garza case and the president's repeated promises to nominate only antichoice justices, it is clear that if confirmed, judge kavanaugh would continue to chip away at this fundamental freedom. the second reason it's clear judge kavanaugh is not dedicated to protecting all americans equally is that he has repeatedly ruled against

restrictions on pollutants that threaten our health. he has not been dedicated to protecting the air we breathe, the water we dripping, and the land we -- the water we drink, and the land we share. in a 2012 case, he authored an opinion that found the e.p.a. had exceeded its authority when the agency took -- told upwind states to literally stop blowing smoke onto their downwind neighbors. and in 2014, judge kavanaugh objected to using the clean air act to establish programs to reduce mercury, a potent toxin that harms developing brains and greenhouse gases. judge kavanaugh's narrow view of the clean air act could be extremely harmful to our efforts to address climate change by regulating grog greenhouse gases. and although the act does not mention greenhouse gases by name, the supreme court has held that the e.p.a. does have the power to regulate them. in fact, the court held that the

act requires the e.p.a. to address any air pollutants that are found to endanger human health. i agree with the supreme court, as do most americans. in april 2018 -- an april 2018 poll found that 75% of americans support even stricter limits on smog. now, judge kavanaugh believes -- he claims to believe that what virtually every scientist tells us, that man-made climate change is real and it is an enormous threat to our planet and our health. but he still seems to have a problem with allowing the government to take action to protect us from new pollutants which threaten our health. at a time when president trump is attempting to backpedal on every commitment our country has made to fighting glim, it is more imperative than ever that we have a supreme court justice that believes in our right to protect and preserve our planet.

now, president trump is pulling out of the paris climate agreement. he is pulling back the clean power plan. he is looking for ways to force utilities to cheat expensive coal plants on line, a move that would cost americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills. and all of these moves would hurt the environment and harm the health of the american people. and in each case, judge kavanaugh's record shows he is likely to act as an enabler. the third area where judge kavanaugh has demonstrated that he is like lie to serve the interests of a far-right partisan agenda rather than the interests of our democracy is voting rights. a judge who upholds a state law that makes it harder for minorities and low-income people to vote is not someone who is going to be dedicated to protecting our most fundamental democratic right. -- the right to vote. if judge kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme