over-wellcomeing confidence in the -- overwhelming confidence in the ability and the dedication of a nominee to the supreme court for the constitution of the united states. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i come to the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. and i want to make a few quick points as we conclude this debate today. and then i want to speak to the people watching who may not believe what the senate could be headed towards today, who are shocked and angry, frustrated, and hurt. madam president, first and foremost, i believe dr. ford. i believe her when she shared her experience being assaulted by judge kavanaugh.

i believe her because of what she said and she remembered with 100% certainty. and i believe her despite what some republicans are trying to use to tear her down because i know trauma experts tell us survivors may not remember every single detail of these events. i believe republican leaders and president trump did everything they could to hide the facts and rush this through because they were afraid of what a full investigation would show. and i believe it is simply wrong to rush to a finish on this confirmation based on that alone madam president, i also believe that what we saw of judge kavanaugh's temperament in the hearing last week, his bitter partisanship, his rage, his disrespect was absolutely disqualifying as well and will undermine the supreme court and erode trust in the decisions that they make.

i believe the lack of credibility and honesty he demonstrated in his hearings which i and my colleagues have spoken about here at great length is absolutely disqualifying as well. and this isn't just me saying this. we are hearing an unprecedented outcry on this particular point from lawyers and judges and former clerks and the religious community and even supreme court justice stevens. and, madam president, even setting aside those major issues before dr. ford's allegations came out, before we saw more of judge kavanaugh in those hearings, i opposed his nomination because it was so clear he was picked by president trump for a few key reasons. specifically, he would overturn roe v. wade and erode women's health care. he would gut health care reform and end protections for patients with preexisting conditions, and he would protect president trump with his disturbingly expansive

view on presidential power which is particularly dangerous when we have a president under investigation with members of his campaign and administration going to jail and facing indictment. madam president, that's not all we know about him, but we know those things and to me that was enough to make my decision. so i do oppose judge kavanaugh. and i hope we can do the right thing here in the united states senate today. but madam president, i want to spend the rest of my few minutes this morning making a different point and not just to my colleagues but to the people who are watching, from home and across the country because i am very concerned about the message republican leaders are sending today to women and girls and survivors right now. the message they are delivering here on the senate floor and at rallies, through the press and directly to people. to dr. ford and miss ramirez and so many women, girls, and

survivors, these republicans are saying your voices don't matter. your experiences, your trauma, your pain, your heartache, your anger, none of that matters. their message is we don't have to listen. we don't have to care. sit down. be quiet. they're sending the message if you are a woman who was attacked, you are a survivor, your experience is one more, quote, hiccup to, quote, plow right through on the path of them getting what they want. that if you come forward with your experience, you will be told you are, quote, just mixed up, wrong, lying, or worse. they are sending the message you will be asked why you didn't come forward sooner, what you wore, how much you had to drink, what medication you were taking, if you had any history of mental health issues, why you could remember some things like the attacker's name and face, not remember others, how you got to the party, how you got home, that you will be mocked and undermined, told to, quote, grow up and waved away, and that's just if they can't find a way to

sweep you aside and ignore you altogether. they're sending a message that when it comes to a man who has gone to prestigious schools, who has all the connections, spent his entire life setting himself up for this moment, it's his experience that matter, his pain that matters, his future that matters, not yours. and madam president, they aren't just sending a message to women and girls. they are sending a message to men and boys, too, and that is what frightens me just as muscle. they're sending a message to -- much. they're sending a message to them that if they attack women, they hurt people, they're going to be fine, that they may hear this kind of behavior is wrong, it's not acceptable but don't worry, nothing will actually happen to them if they do it. they can grab women without their consent and brag about it. they can sexually assault women and laugh about it and they're probably going to be fine. they could even grow up to be president of the united states

or justice on the supreme court. madam president, that is absolutely wrong. so i want to send a very different message today to women, girls, and survivors. your voices do matter. your experiences do matter. there are a whole lot of people who are listening to you, who do hear you, who do believe you, and please, please do not give up and do not stay quiet. because no matter what happens today, however this vote goes, your voices are making a difference. maybe not to those republicans mocking dr. ford. they may not want to hear what you have to say. maybe not to president trump. but with every story that comes out, every new voice that breaks the silence, we make progress. every father and mother who learns what happened to their daughter or son all those years ago that they had never shared before. every son and daughter who hears from their mom or dad about abuse or attacks they faced and never talked about.

everyone who hears from a friend who listens to a coworker, it does make a difference. we've seen that since the metoo movement started, more and more of that these past few weeks, stories coming out, helping people understand how pervasive this is, how this kind of violence is something women have been putting up with for ages in silence, unheard, seemingly inevitable, a wall placed in front of every woman and girl in this country, and how as more and more people have so bravely spoken up cracks have begun to appear in that wall. some cracks in how people see the world, people who may never have understood before, who may never have seen the perspective they are learning more and more about now. some cracks in how companies and institutions need to respond who may have never felt that pressure before. some cracks in how men and boys are acting, hearing more and more that this is not okay, it

cannot be accepted. it will not be accepted. cracks, cracks, and cracks, but clearly today we feel the wall still stands. madam president, if judge kavanaugh is confirmed despite all of the outcry and all of the work done, there will be a lot of people who are angry and hurt. i will be one of them. there will be frustration. there will be tears. i will be joining in them. but there are also -- but there also will be a sense that nothing we can do matters, that if someone like judge kavanaugh can get a seat on the supreme court, we should just give up, that we can't make a difference, we can't matter. that, madam president, i will not be a part of because here is the message i want to send today. change is not easy. it never is. we cannot give up the fight and we cannot be discouraged. my vision, my fight, my passion is to live in a country where my granddaughters can walk down the street, go to a party, live their lives, not live in fear,

but be treated with respect. i want to live in a country where my granddaughters can go into a job interview and be judged based on what they can do, not how they look. i want to live in a country where you can succeed no matter where you were born, what you look like, or who you love if you work hard and treat others right. where you don't have to go to prestigious schools and know powerful people and make the best political connections and go to the right parties. i want to live in a country where if you do do all those things and know all those people but hurt others and treat people with disrespect, you will pay the price. you will face the consequences. madam president, clearly we are not there yet, but i do believe we're making progress. we may not feel it every day and today is a day when it is hard, but i believe it. and my message to everyone watching right now is this. don't give up.

don't give in. don't think your voice doesn't matter. when the senate failed anita hill and confirmed justice thomas in 1991, i got mad. i decided to run for the senate. i wouldn't let anyone tell me i had no shot. and i won. and i see that story repeated over and over. people get angry. they start talking about it. they organize and sometimes they face setbacks, but they make a difference. they put more cracks into that wall. but when i hear people give up hope, when they tell me they're ending their fight, that they think what they do doesn't matter, i know i'm hearing from someone who isn't going to make a difference. and i think of a line i remind myself all the time. if someone tells you you can't make a difference, it's usually because they are afraid that you will. they are afraid that you will. because it's true. they're petrified because they do know your voice matters

whatever you may think, whatever they may say. madam president, whatever happens today, i'm going to get up tomorrow. i'm going to keep fighting. i'm going to keep fighting for the kind of country i want to live in, for the country i want for my granddaughters, for all of our granddaughters and all of our grandsons, a country where someone like dr. ford is believed, where she is not attacked, where someone like judge kavanaugh doesn't get rushed on to the highest court in the land, and i really hope everyone who stood up and spoke out who is motivated by dr. ford and so many others, i hope you are all with me today, tomorrow, and for the fight ahead. so, madam president, i urge my colleagues to stand with us, to vote no today, and to keep working with us tomorrow. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mitch began.

mr. peters: madam president, our nation has seen some deeply concerning trends in decades. increased polarization, flat wages for workers and a growing tribal mindset that makes it increasingly difficult for people to trust each other and our public institutions. we are also seeing a partisan divide that is growing stronger and wider by the day. for example, 60 years ago about 4% of americans said that they would be seriously disappointed if their son or daughter married someone from the opposite political party. today it is almost half. we are also seeing a growing economic divide. 50 years ago nine out of ten 30-year-olds in america were better off than their parents at the same age. in 2010 only half were. it feel, like the bonds that

make us a cohesive society are fraying. and that life in the united states is growing more unfair for so many americans. bringing our country back together and strengthening our bonds with each other will not be an easy task, but without question the supreme court has an unapparelled ability to either move our society forward or to pull us further apart. unanimous opinions by the supreme court to strike down segregation in public schools, affirm the right of criminal defendants to an attorney, and to rein in the use of executive privilege by president nixon show the the of ideologically diverse judges to agree on what is fair and what is right. but the supreme court is an institution -- as an institution is far, far from infallible.

the same institution that just three years ago made marriage equality the law of the land also upheld internment of american citizens of japanese descent while our parents fought to liberate prisoners in german concentration camps across the atlantic ocean, the same institution that gave american women the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health in roe v. wade denied citizenship to african american slaves in the shameful dred scott decision. some of my colleagues have said they have confidence that judge kavanaugh believes in roe v. wade and that it is the settled law. i hope they are right, but i seriously doubt it. i think that if confirmed, judge kavanaugh will spearhead the continued erosion of rights for american women and if given the chance, will vote to overturn this settled precedent. lots of talk in washington about

the supreme court. senators -- centers on precedent or power or procedure. but, madam president, i would argue voting for a supreme court nominee is fundamentally about people. in making a decision on how i will vote on a supreme court nominee, i ask two questions. first, how will the nominee serve the people of michigan and, second, how will the nominee serve the nation as a whole. and now more than ever i think we need our supreme court not to be just fair, we also need americans to truly believe that the justices that make up the supreme court are fair and capable of dispassionate deliberation. no human being, of course, can be entirely impartial or without bias, but we need supreme court justices who are able to understand their biases and set them aside for the good of the

country. what we need is fairness. what we need is trust. our fraying social fabric can only be rebuilt by trust, trust in our institutions, trust in each other, and trust that our courts will give every american a fair chance in an era where corporate profits are ballooning to record levels. but 40% of americans don't have the savings to cover a $400 emergency expense. a breakdown of trust undermines our democracy. the farther and faster we retreat to the our partisan corners, the harder it will be to ever meet in the middle again. while americans expect partisanship from their elected officials, they expect better from our judges. our founders created a coequal branch of government dedicated to fairness, and that was the supreme court.

but, unfortunately, when i examine the record of judge kavanaugh, i do not see an open mind. i do not see fairness. i see a partisan i had log who - ideologue who will do backflips for the powerful and elite. when the supreme court conducts its duty to advise and consent on supreme court nominees, we often talk about methods of constitutional interpretation. some judges are texturalists, some are originalists, some are pragmatists. i believe judge kavanaugh is a corporatist, pure and six. he starts with the outcome that corporate executives would want and then he works backwards. i believe this is the unifying theme of his rulings over the past decade. let's take a moment to review his record. judge kavanaugh sided with big polluters when he wrote that the environmental protection agency could not enforce their

good-neighbor rule. this commonsense rule simply states -- states whose air pollution that blows across their state lines bear some responsibility for the downwind emissions. it is one of the best ways to crack down on sulfur dioxide, a noxious pollution that request created a public health crisis in detroit, which childhood asthma rates almost 40% above the national average. more sulfur dioxide in the air means more children in hospitals and fewer children in the classroom. judge kavanaugh substituted his own values and judgment for the decisions of congress and the e.p.a. but fortunately even conservative justices on the supreme court voted to overrule him and allow the good-neighbor rule to stay in place. judge kavanaugh apparently does not believe in good neighbors,

and he also does not believe in good bosses. he has consistently ruled against workers and their interests every chance that he gets. he wrote a dissent saying that companies can simply walk away from collective bargaining agreements made with their workers by just creating a spinoff, a non-unilateral company. -- a nonunion company. he ruled that companies can call the introduce prevent workers from exercising their right to peacefully picket. for judge kavanaugh, the first amendment right to speech and assembly comes second to a corporation's bottom line. this is the judicial philosophy that the republican majority has just -- is just hours away from elevating to the highest court in the land. based on a review of judge kavanaugh's rulings, it will be clear that if something is good for consumers, he will find a way to oppose it. for example, judge kavanaugh sided with large telecom corporations over michigan

families, start-ups, and small businesses when he wrote a dissent to gut net neutrality protections. judge kavanaugh sided with payday lenders, financial fraudsters and global megabanks when he ruled that the consumer financial protection bureau was unconstitutional. not only does judge kavanaugh always rule directly in favor of the largest corporations and powerful special interests, his rulings show that he wants to further tilt our campaign finance system in their favor. he has spoken out and ruled in favor of unlimited political spending in federal elections. and in 2011 judge kavanaugh authored an opinion that would allow foreign nationals -- not americans, foreign nationals to spend unlimited -- yes, unlimited -- money on issue ads in american elections. madam president, if you like dark money undermining our free and fair elections, well, judge

kavanaugh is definitely your guy. i think that judge kavanaugh generally believes that money is speech and that corporations are people. to him, americans are only an afterthought. madam president, i know many americans are wondering whether judge kavanaugh will look out for their best interests if confirmed to the supreme court. i hear it all the time as i travel across michigan. to my fellow americans, i would say this -- if you enjoy breathing clean air, if you have a boss, if you care about not being defrauded by financial bad actors, or if you care about a woman's right to choose, judge kavanaugh will not be providing the fairness that you seek. like many americans, i followed closely the testimonies of dr. ford and judge kavanaugh before the senate judiciary committee. and as i watched dr. ford, i didn't see a partisan ideologue

very vatted by politics. what i saw was a woman speaking with credibility, with earnestness and incredible bravery. as i watched judge kavanaugh testify before that same judiciary committee, i saw something very different. i didn't see the temperament and humility we expect from a supreme court justice. i saw rage and i saw entitlement. i didn't see a thoughtful legal mind bound by precedent or tradition. i saw a partisan political operative cloaked in judicial robes bestowed upon him last decade by a republican majority flexing their political muscle. i didn't see an umpire who wants to call balls and strikes. i saw a man who believes that he is the league's commissioner, a man who thinks he should have the power to rewrite the rules of the game, to help his powerful friends. i didn't see a man committed to fairness and building trust.

i saw a man committed to consolidating power and scoring political points. and i saw a man whose fluid relationship with the truth is beneath the united states senate and beneath the united states supreme court. today more than ever, americans need trust and we need fairness. judge kavanaugh's confirmation will provide only more division in our country and cast a cloud over the decisions of the court for years to come. madam president, i urge my colleagues to oppose judge kavanaugh's confirmation and start over with a nominee worthy of our supreme court. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. baldwin: there is one standard. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: madam president, there is one standard that beshould all apply to -- that we should all apply to any nominee to the supreme court, honesty. while some have chosen not to apply that standard to judge kavanaugh, i must. at the very least, we should expect a nominee for our highest court to be honest. i do not believe judge kavanaugh has met this standard. in fact, there is a long record of this nominee not being truthful when he came before the senate judiciary committee. i don't believe that he was truthful in 2006 in his

testimony before the senate just as i don't believe he was honest in 2018. last week i joined millions of americans in watching dr. christine blasey ford and her powerful testimony before the senate judiciary committee in which she credibly presented serious and deeply disturbing allegations of sexual assault. i have deep respect for her strength and the courage she has shown in coming forward and putting her own safety and that of her family's on the line to do the right thing. to me dr. blasey ford was honest and i believe her. i supported the call for the white house to reopen the f.b.i. background investigation of judge kavanaugh.

dr. blasey ford did, too. however, in his testimony to the senate judiciary committee, judge kavanaugh repeatedly refused to support such an investigation by the f.b.i. it is clear to me that the white house and the senate republicans severely limited what could have been a full and independent review by the f.b.i. of the credible allegations against this supreme court nominee. the fact is the white house and senate republicans would not allow the f.b.i. to interview dr. blasey ford, judge kavanaugh, and a number of witnesses who came forward publicly. that is simply wrong. it is also wrong to be moving forward on a supreme court nominee who so clearly lacks the honesty and judicial temperament that we would expect of someone

serving on our nation's highest court. let us not ignore what we all witnessed at last week's judiciary committee hearing. we saw a stark contrast between two witnesses. dr. ford was honest, credible, respectful, and thoughtful. on the other hand, judge kavanaugh was not honest about a number of things he was questioned about, and he did not provide truthful testimony. what he did provide were aggressively angry political attacks that prove that he lacks the judicial temperament to serve on america's highest court. even before judge kavanaugh's recent hearing, i did not believe that he would be an independent judge. powerful special interests in washington hand picked him and have used their massive dark

money resources to push his nomination forward. i can only conclude that judge kavanaugh would work for them and not the people of wisconsin or our nation. it is no wonder that judge kavanaugh is the choice of these powerful and wealthy corporate special interests. they want to ensure that they maintain the majority on the supreme court that will rule on their issues and in their favor. as my colleague and judiciary committee member senator whitehouse has described in great detail, since 2006, the five conservative justices have joined together 73 times as a bare majority in 5-4 rulings in favor of big special interests. these decisions have turned back progress on voting rights,

environmental protections, and have allowed corporations to discrimination -- discriminate against workers. judge kavanaugh's record shows that he will advance this troubling trend when the people of wisconsin need a fair, impartial, and independent supreme court justice who will stand up for them not just the big powerful special interests. at a time when so many in washington are working to overturn the law of the land that helps provide affordable health care to 133 million americans with preexisting conditions, including more than two million wisconsinites, we cannot afford a nominee who would serve as the deciding vote to take us back to the days when powerful insurance companies wrote the rules. the president vowed to appoint judges to the supreme court who would overturn the law of the

land roe v. wade. and i take him at his word. judge kavanaugh is his choice for a lifetime appointment that would turn back the clock on a woman's constitutional right and freedom to make her own health care choices. including access to birth control. i also have serious concerns about judge kavanaugh's belief that a president should be protected from investigations and subpoenas and indictments. we have an ongoing national security investigation by the special counsel looking at russia's attack on our democracy, criminal conspiracy and potential obstruction of justice. particularly, after his highly partisan testimony before the judiciary committee, i do not trust judge kavanaugh to provide the independence that we need on

our supreme court at this time. when judge kavanaugh was nominated, i reviewed his record and opposed his nomination because the stakes are too high for the american people. they do not want a supreme court to advance a political agenda, to overturn the law of the land on health care for people with preexisting conditions, women's reproductive health, and the constitutional rights and freedoms of all americans. i truly wish i had been granted the opportunity to discuss these important issues with judge kavanaugh before this vote, but after seven requests to the white house for a meeting with this nominee, they did not grant me the opportunity to talk to judge kavanaugh. the people of wisconsin need a fair, impartial, and independent supreme court justice.

based on everything we know, i do not have the confidence that judge kavanaugh would be that justice, and i will vote no on his confirmation to the united states supreme court. i would ask for a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: rise today in suppoe

nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice on the united states supreme court. here in the senate, the constitution grants us a solemn responsibility to provide advice and consent to the president's

nominees. i was proud to be at the white house as president trump announced the nomination of this exceptionally qualified judge. after evaluating judge kavanaugh's legal record and background, i personally met with him in my office. during our meeting we covered many topics, including judicial activism. judge kavanaugh stated to me that judicial activism is the the subtiewtion of policy preferences for stated law. he committed to me that he would never add nor subtract from our country's constitution, but that he would apply it fairly to all. we had a wide-ranging hour-long discussion where i shared with him the qualities i want to see in a supreme court justice and questioned his record and judicial philosophies.

judges are not legislatures or activists. they are interpret teres of the law -- interpreters of the law. they must have integrity and understand that all americans must be treated equally under the law. judges must uphold high standards with a fair-minded approach, tremendous intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good. madam president, i am confident that judge kavanaugh possesses all of these qualities. moreover, i was impressed by his commitment to the rule of law. he understands the proper role of a judge as an interpreter, not the writer of the law. he also understands that unlike members of congress or the executive branch who are accountable to the people, the judiciary must act independently

and follow the law wherever it takes them. this was something we heard repeatedly from him in his lengthy confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee. judge kavanaugh demonstrated his strong commitment to judicial independence. during the hearing he repeatedly affirmed that, quote, what makes a good judge is independence, not being swayed by political or public pressure. that takes some backbone. it takes some judicial fortitude. the great moments in american judicial history, the judges had backbone and independence. he continued. judges make decisions based on law, not on policy, not based on political pressure, not based on the identity of the parties. no matter who you are, no matter

where you come from, no matter how rich you are, how poor you are, no matter your race, your gender, no matter your station in life, no matter your position in government, it's all equal justice under law. end quote. i believe his words and judicial philosophy are what every member of the senate, republican or democrat, should require from their nominee. i also admire judge kavanaugh's appreciation of the supreme court's position in setting and interpreting precedent. he's even written a book on it, and i'm comfortable with his understanding and appreciation for the role of precedent in the judicial process. for 12 years judge kavanaugh has served on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. our nation's second most

influential court. his record is remarkable. with nearly 200 controlling opinions, he has proven to be one of the most thoughtful, preeminent judges in our nation. in 13 cases, the supreme court adopted judge kavanaugh's reasoning in his decisions. this is a key point. as it was not just 13 decisions in agreement. it was judge kavanaugh's actual language and the thought process in his decisions which were used in the opinions of our nation's highest court. the logic behind judge kavanaugh's opinions are already woven into supreme court precedent. regarding privacy issues in united states v. jones, judge kavanaugh dissented when the court denied the government's request for a rehearing.

he argued that the case deserved to be heard by the full court and indicated support for the narrow property-based fourth amendment argument made by the plaintiff. when considering whether a warrant was required in order to install a g.p.s. tracker in a suspect's car, he said the suspect's property rights should have been taken into account. in justice scalia's majority opinion, he agreed with kavanaugh's property-based approach. when it comes to administrative law, he has taken a consistent and balanced approach to assess congressional intent and implying -- applying exceptions to chevron deference ensuring the federal agencies are executing the laws crafted by congress, not creating their own versions of the law.

according to his words, judge kavanaugh looks to the settled bedrock principles of constitutional law. in protecting congress, he has found that, quote, the president and federal agencies may not ignore statutory mandates or prohibitions merely because of policy disagreement with congress. judge kavanaugh also has a strong comprehension of freedom of speech under the first amendment. he demonstrated this in his decision in the case of boredly v. the united states department of interior. this particular case dealt with a christian man, michael boredly who was stopped by the national park service from handing out pamphlets on his faith at mount rush more. -- rushmore.

judge kavanaugh joined the majority in ruling against the park service and their exceedingly broad regulation of free speech. in authoring hundreds of opinions while joining hundreds of others, judge kavanaugh has distinguished himself as a thought leader on the federal bench. madam president, over the past few weeks, i believe the senate confirmation process has become a shameful spectacle and a disservice to everyone involved. i appreciate professor ford's sincere testimony. i believe she has experienced a traumatic event that no woman should have to endure. there is no evidence, though, that judge kavanaugh was the perpetrator. a seventh f.b.i. background investigation of judge kavanaugh failed to corroborate professor

ford's account. moreover, there are a number of key facts missing from professor ford's story. my job as a senator is to assess the facts and make a judgment. i continue to support judge kavanaugh and believe he will serve our nation with integrity and devotion to the rule of law. i am confident that judge kavanaugh will be an outstanding supreme court justice. i look forward to voting in favor of his confirmation. he will serve the american people with distinction. thank you, madam president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: madam president, i ask for vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that three letters and a news article related to allegations against judge kavanaugh be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice on the united states supreme court. the vacancy that judge kavanaugh seeks to fill is not an ordinary one. the retirement of supreme court justice anthony kennedy created one of the most consequential vacancies on the high court that this country has ever seen. there is a reason why scholars and pundits refer to the supreme court of the last 30 years as the kennedy court. his influence on so many important cases can not be

overstated. throughout his three decades on the supreme court, justice kennedy was often the swing vote in decisions decided 5-4 on a divided bench. after john roberts became chief justice in 2005, justice kennedy was the deciding vote in 92% of all cases decided by one vote. let me repeat that. of the 203 cases decided by a 5-4 court in the john roberts era, justice kennedy was the deciding vote in 186 of them, 92%. the justice who succeeds anthony

kennedy on the supreme court will have the opportunity to leave a deep and lasting mark on issues of the highest magnitude. any nominee to the supreme court carries significance, but a nominee at this moment for this seat will play a defining role in our nation's history. the constitutional obligation conferred on senators to provide their advice and consent on a supreme court nomination is a powerful, a serious, and a sacred responsibility. as senators, we are duty bound to determine whether brett kavanaugh is worthy of our trust. even before president trump nominated brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, there were serious concerns that his views were too extreme, that he lacked

the independence we seek in our judges, and that he had a difficult relationship with the truth. during the confirmation process for his current position on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, brett kavanaugh made misleading statements under oath to the senate judiciary committee on issues such as the bush administration's policies on torture, his involvement in the nominations of controversial judges, and his knowledge about the theft of e-mails from the democratic staff of the senate judiciary committee. then when this came time to fill justice kennedy's seat on the supreme court, judge kavanaugh was handpicked by the federalist society, an ultra conservative group dedicated to forestalling far -- to installing far-right

judges on our federal bench. the federalist society promised donald trump that the judges on that list would support his partisan agenda if they were elevated to the supreme court. and donald trump repeatedly assured his supporters about that agenda, promising them that he would only appoint justices to the supreme court who would overturn roe v. wade and the affordable care act. let me restate that. donald trump promised that he would only appoint justices to the supreme court who would overturn roe v. wade and the affordable care act. as to brett kavanaugh, the promises that donald trump and the federalist society made were backed up by kavanaugh's judicial record on the d.c.

circuit. as a federal appeals court judge, brett kavanaugh brought a dissenting opinion questioning congress' authority to enact the affordable care act and suggesting that the president could choose not to enforce it. judge kavanaugh would have block add lower court's order, allowing an undocumented minor to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy. judge kavanaugh supported employers who sought to deny their employees access to contraception. judge kavanaugh wrote an opinion that unless guns were regulated either at the time the constitution was written or traditionally throughout history, they cannot be regulated now. eliminate have struck down the district of columbia's a-- he would have struck down the district of columbia's assault weapon ban because assault weapons have not historically been banned. and how about 3-d downloaded

guns. that wasn't in the original constitution. there was no 3-d guns. are we bound by what the founding fathers thought about weapons or can we ourselves make a determination here? he says, no, it goes back to the time when the constitution was drafted or throughout history but not today -- and that's just wrong. judge kavanaugh has consistently opposed strong environmental protections and sought to restrict the authority of the environmental protection agency, and he authored a dissenting opinion that argued that net neutrality rules were unconstitutional. at the same time and time again on all of these issues, access to health care, consumer and environmental protections and a free and open internet, gun kavanaugh has been a rubber stamp for a far-right -- far

right-wing agenda. but that's not the only reason president trump chose brett kavanaugh for the supreme court. judge kavanaugh, who once served as ken starr's top deputy in the investigation of president clinton, has since written that a sitting president should not be investigated for allegations of wrongdoing, should not be indicted or tried while in office, and should not even have to participate in the civil legal proceedings until he leaves office. that's had a convenient reversal of a pro-investigation, pro-litigation position that kavanaugh held when a democrat was in the white house. it's a reversal that synchronizes very well with donald trump's interests. when donald trump was under criminal investigation is legal

issues arising from that investigation potentially headed to the supreme court and with brett kavanaugh having articulated strong views about shielding a sitting president from criminal proceedings, his confirmation is a constitutional crisis in the making. it is no coincidence that a president who fears the long arm of the law would nominate to the supreme court a jurist who would keep him from its reach. brett kavanaugh has left a lengthy paper trail on all these hot-button issues, and that's why president trump and his allies closed ranks and fought to keep so much of his public record hidden from the american public. despite repeated requests from senate democrats for documents relating to brett kavanaugh's service in the bush white house,

we -- the members of the senate -- have only seen 7% of those records that were in fact part of kavanaugh's record inside of the bush white house, and only about half of that 7% are available to the public. to put it another way, no other senator has seen 93% of all of brett kavanaugh's work in the white house. that work includes reflections on his views on the detention of enemy combatants, the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, banning of same-sex marriage. we here on the senate floor, as we cast a vote today, we do not have access to any of those

documents that he worked on while serving in the bush white house. how can we give advice before we vote on consent if we can't even gain access to the documents which he himself handled in the bush white house, which he himself may have commented upon during the time that they were being considered? we have no access to it. 93% of all of the documents are not available to the members of the senate. and even though there are rooms of paper detailing brett kavanaugh's involvement on these issues, his record on them remains a blank slate for senators. so, to summarize, even before the events of the last three weeks, we know a lot of things about brett kavanaugh. and yet, at the same time, we

know shockingly little about brett kavanaugh. we have someone in his life who has been a blatantly partisan person, but as you're trying to be nominated for the supreme court, we, the senators, the american public, they have a right know what you think about issues. and that is why every preceding nominee has had to provide all of the document takes with the notable exception of brett kavanaugh, who is denying us 93%, and that is happening with the acquiescence of the trump white house and the republican leadership. here in the senate. no member of the senate, democrat or republican, knows what's in those 93% of all the

papers. no one knows. it's a deliberate cover-up of all of those documents so that we cannot know, the public cannot know. so we begin with that. 93% of all of his record in the white house is not acceptable -- is not accessible to us, even though this nominee is given to us from this white house. so we know a lot, but there's much, much more that we do not know. we knew that we had a federalist society approved nominee who would -- who could shield him from jeopardy. and we knew that there was much else we didn't know because that 90%, that 93% was being hidden from public scrutiny.

all these reasons alone were enough to warrant a no vote on judge kavanaugh's lifetime appointment to the supreme court. but then we learned of dr. blasey ford. she bravely came forward to tell us about the brett kavanaugh she knew. she came forward to share a deeply personal and traumatic experience of sexual assault. dr. blasey ford did not want to share this painful story with the american public. she did not want to have her life upturned and picked apart. she did not want to subject her family to harassment and death threats. she did not want the president of the united states to shamefully and appallingly mock her at a political rally, but she came forward anyway. she came forward because she believed it was her civic duty to do so. from the beginning, it was clear that her ales were credible. she had recounted the painful

experiences to her husband in counseling years before brett kavanaugh was ever considered for the supreme court, something that her therapist's notes corroborate. three years before brett kavanaugh was nominated, while her name was publicly in play for the supreme court, dr. blasey ford reached out to her congresswoman in the hope that she could help inform president trump as he decided on a nominee to fill justice kennedy's seat. dr. blasey ford took a polygraph test to prove that she was truthful, and she only shared her story publicly when reporters made it untenable to remain silent. every detail shows dr. blasey ford to be consistent, honest, and trust worth when i. as hard as it was for her, dr. ford did our country an invaluable service by coming

forward, testifying before the senate, and telling the entire country her story. her testimony was powerful, it was heartwrenching. when she spoke of her strongest memory of the assault, the laughter of the two boys, as brett kavanaugh pinned per down, we felt her profound pain. when she spoke of brett kavanaugh covering her independent counsel as she tried to scream, we felt her visceral fear. and for countless women and men across the country whose experience mirrors that of dr. blasey ford, this testimony was their voice. for many of them, dr. blasey ford's courage gave them courage to come forward with their own stories. on the date of her testimony, my office received over 100 calls from survivors who courageously shared with my staff the painful details of their own assaults.

many of these men and women were telling their stories for the first time. women have stopped me at the airport, on the street to tell me their stories. dr. blasey has given them the courage of to come forward so that they can share their own experiences. dr. ford's courage opened a wellspring of emotion. a pplaud her. we owe her a deep debt of gratitude. she was a role modeled for all of us, for the children of the country, and for future generations. she has given new meaning to what it means to be a good citizen. dr. ford was compelling. she was convincing. she was courageous. she had nothing to gain and everything to lose. no reasonable, open-minded person could have listened to dr. blasey ford and concluded anything other than she is telling the truth about what happened between here and brett kavanaugh.

you go there are two sides -- but there are two sides to every story. what about the other side of the story? what did judge brett kavanaugh have to say about it after we heard dr. ford testify before the judiciary committee? it was judge kavanaugh's turn. and what did we hear from judge kavanaugh? we heard anger many we heard belligerence. we heard evasiveness. we heard disrespect. judge kavanaugh's testimony before the judiciary committee reinforced the old concerns about his credibility. he gave answers about his behavior in high school about supposed drinking games and about his yearbook page that simply defy credulity. recent reports from those who know him from high school and college contradict the assertions that he was never aggressive or belligerent after drinking or the terms in his yearbook had the meaning he

ascribed to them before the judiciary committee. in fact, in a letter that brett kavanaugh wrote in 1983 that surfaced after his testimony, he described himself and his friends as, quote, loud, obnoxious drunks. the point is not that brett kavanaugh engaged in questionable behavior in high school, the point is that he was not honest about it with the judiciary committee under oath at his confirmation hearing. the point is that he was not credible. the point is that he misled the judiciary committee. the point is that if, as my colleagues framed the issue yesterday, we are assessing whether dr. ford's allegation satisfy a more like than not standard, they do and do so easily. and the point is that judge kavanaugh showed an alarming lack of judiciary committee temperament in addressing those issues. but don't take my word for it.

consider what judge brett kavanaugh has to say. what would judge brett kavanaugh say about supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh's appearance before the judiciary committee? well, in 2015, judge brett kavanaugh gave a speech at the catholic university on what makes a good judge. he set forth litmus tests for a good judge. the characteristics and qualities he or she must have. here's what he said then. brett kavanaugh said, quote, first and obviously a good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act like a partisan. he went on to say that it is very important for a judge, quote, to avoid any semblance of that partisanship that political background. yet, in his opening statement to the judiciary committee, his opening statement judge kavanaugh launched into a nakedly partisan screed. he blamed democratic senators

for a conspiracy to destroy his nomination. he called the recent allegations against him a part of some revenge of the clintons. he told the democratic senators on the dais that what goes around comes around making an unvarnished political threat in his opening statement to the judiciary committee. judge kavanaugh failed his own test of partisanship. and next in his 2015 catholic university speech, judge kavanaugh said that, quote, it is critical to have the proper demeanor. judge kavanaugh added, that it is important for judges, quote, to keep our emotions in check and be calm against the storm. anyone watching judge kavanaugh's testimony before the judiciary committee saw just the on the sit -- just the opposite. judge kavanaugh was angry, emotional and belligerent. what we saw is a performance that we would expect from a judge on the "people's court,"

not the supreme court of the united states. judge kavanaugh failed his own test for judicial temperament. finally in his 2015 catholic university speech, judge kavanaugh counseled that a good judge must demonstrate civility. yet in his appearance before the judiciary committee, judge kavanaugh impugned the characterrer of democratic senators, he was rude, he went so far as to request ask my colleague senate klobuchar whether she blacked out drinking. he was there to answer questions, not ask questions. he failed his own test of civility. that's why more than 2,100 law professors wrote to us and said that judge kavanaugh des splaid a lack of -- displayed a lack of

judicial temperament. that is why former supreme court john paul stevens took the extraordinary step of stating publicly that judge kavanaugh's performance at his confirmation hearing disqualified him from serving on the supreme court. let us remember this. brett kavanaugh is not entitled to a job on the supreme court. no one is. but the american people are entitled to the truth, and president trump and the senate republicans have kept it from them. the f.b.i. background investigation that was reopened after dr. blasey ford's testimony was not an investigation. it was a fig relief to cover concerns about judge kavanaugh. the f.b.i. interviewed only nine witnesses. unbelievably dr. blasey ford and brett kavanaugh were not amongst the people interviewed by the f.b.i. the f.b.i. was forced to ignore

countless leaks or not to follow up on them. then senators were given one hour to review the results of the so-called investigation. i was locked in a secure room with 17 senators and one copy of the f.b.i. report for all of us. it was like a bad game show where senators competed with each other to get pages of the report from the hands of their colleagues, read them, and digest them before the clock ran out on the one hour we were given to read those reports. it was the single most absurd thing i have experienced in my time in congress. and, sadly, it was entirely consistent with the manner in which the senate republicans have handled this nomination throughout the confirmation process. and that's why because the white house and the senate republicans weren't interested in getting to the truth. they were interested in covering it up and ramming through judge

kavanaugh's nomination. they have gone so far as to stoke claims that dr. ford's supporters have an you will tearier -- ulterior motive. it seems many of my republican colleagues cannot bring themselves to believe that a woman account of a sexual assault and that other women and men have also experienced would rise up in support of her. that is shameful that people think that is what has occurred. just shameful. article 3 of the constitution says that a supreme court justice shall hold office during good behavior. that's the standard after someone serves on the supreme court. what this body has been unwilling to do is actually determine whether or not judge kavanaugh has engaged in good behavior before he is put on the court. they have truncated that

process. they have made it impossible for us to get to the bottom of that truth. the republicans control the chamber, they control the schedule they rushed to judgment on brett kavanaugh in order to confirm him before the mid-term elections. they have 51 votes to confirm anyone they want. the democrats do not control this chamber. they have the 51 votes. if they wanted to bring in someone that did not have these problems, they could have done it at any time. they could do it today. we have no power to stop the republicans from confirming a justice this year. no power. that is absolutely untrue. what the republicans in in their power is to nominate someone, even today, who is worthy of serving on the supreme court. we know they want a supreme court justice that will overturn roe v. wade. we know they want a supreme court justice who will take away

health care coverage for preexisting conditions. we know they want a supreme court justice who won't question donald trump or let him be investigated. if brett kavanaugh is confirmed it will further harm a supreme court that is never fully -- has never fully recovered from bush v. gore the decision that threw the 2000 election to george w. bush. it will further harm a judge from judge neil gorsuch joining the court after republicans stole that seat from merrick garland. confirming brett kavanaugh to the supreme court will further undermine the court's legitimacy and continue to diminish the american people's trust in it. the supreme court of the united states deserve better than brett kavanaugh. the american people deserve better. our democracy deserve better. i will therefore vote no for

brett kavanaugh to serve on supreme court of the united states. i urge my colleagues to vote no as well. thank you, madam president. mr. markey: i suggest the be a a -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: can you tell me what the status of the debate is. the presiding officer: the senate's in a quorum call. mrs. shaheen: i ask the quorum call be lifted. g officer: without objection. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i came to the floor today to join so many of my colleagues in expressing my opposition to brett kavanaugh's nomination to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court. as the highest court in the land, the justices on the supreme court are tasked with the enormous responsibility of interpreting and protecting the fundamental constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all americans. its decisions are not abstract legal principles that are reserved for a few.

its decisions affect the rights of all of us. they touch on issues that affect all of our daily lives from the health care we receive to the person we can marry to the air that we breathe. these are significant stakes that we face when considering any nomination to serve on the supreme court. now, weeks ago i announced my opposition to judge kavanaugh's nomination based on concerns that i had with his record. and even though, as senator markey pointed out so eloquently, we haven't gotten to see a lot of that record. we have enough to know that i have very serious concerns about judge kavanaugh. i want to talk about a couple of those. highlight three, actually, concerns. first is his opposition to the

affordable care act. now, i believe all americans in this country, everyone in this country, should have access to health care, health care that they can afford so they don't have to worry when they need to take their kids to the doctor so that they don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they can't afford the costs, about having to worry if they get a serious illness. and, yet, judge kavanaugh dissented in a decision to uphold the affordable care act, and as a result of that decision, he puts critical protections for millions of americans with preexisting conditions at risk, and it's particularly concerning now when we know there is a court case in texas that the government of the united states has declined to continue to defend that puts at risk the requirement that

insurance companies cover those with preexisting conditions. and, you know, you can talk about trying to band-aid over that every way you want, the fact is unless we have a real health care program, as we have under the affordable care act, insurance companies are not going to cover people with preexisting conditions, and they are going to charge you more if they do cover you. second, i'm very concerned about his opposition to women's reproductive rights. judge kavanaugh has praised justice rehnquist's dissent in the landmark roe v. wade decision that guarantees women the right to make their own reproductive health decisions. i believe that's one of the most basic and fundamental rights that we have, not just as women but that