people who have not shared what happened to them with some of their closest friends or family members. these are stains etched in their memories. many of them, as i said, never told a soul. others were ignored or dismissed when they brought these awful experiences up, they were told to stay quiet. mr. president, it's insult to these survivors when some have called them partisan, and in many cases they went out of their way in their messages to me to say that their concern had nothing to do with ideology or partisanship. nothing. some told me they are republicans. others are independents. others grew up where at the time, when families had no care about politics. others told me they were democrats but they'd be more

than willing to accept a different conservative judge, and not this one. mr. president, when donald trump went to a campaign rally and mocked dr. ford, he mocked every one of those 50 survivors who wrote to me. he mocked every survivor of sexual abuse around the country. and this senate's decision to do as the majority leader said, quote, plow right through without undertaking a serious and thorough investigation about the charges from dr. ford, deborah ramirez, that also disrespects the survivors. that's what they say to me.

and, of course, judge kavanaugh did the same thing in his opening statement at his most recent hearing. because his entire opening statement suggested that dr. ford's coming forward was part of some political conspiracy. and, unfortunately, that's where this conversation has gone ever since. not an effort to really get to the truth, to really get all the facts, but just to do what the majority leader said before she even testified -- plow right through. mr. president, we know that etched above the supreme court are the words equal justice under law. it does not say plow right through.

mr. president, the decision to plow right through -- the decision to plow right through will undermine and haunt the integrity of the supreme court for decades to come, and it will also haunt and undermine the integrity of this united states senate. i yield the floor.

ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, i have to say i am sick of this. i am sick of everyone who wants to rewrite the history of what happened in the senate with the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court.

it isn't even over yet and they want people to believe that what we've witnessed over the past weeks was what they call a political hit job perpetrated by democrats with a grudge. that's what the nominee said on thursday many he accused democrats of lying in wait. he twisted dianne feinstein's -- he falsely claimed that democrats had her accusation ready, that dr. ford's accusation was held in secret for weeks because of democrats, as judge kavanaugh put it, couldn't take me out on the merits. what a paranoid fantasy. brett kavanaugh's entire performance was an hour's long rant. i'm quoting him. he said, this whole two-week effort has been a calculated an

orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger of 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 in money from outside left wing opposition groups. end quote. unbelievable, in my view. he claimed to have written this screed on his own without showing it to any of his handlers. i find that hard to believe given that he was reported to have spent 10-hour days at the white house preparing for this hearing. we heard dr. ford's raw and sincere account of that night as a drunk teenaged brett kavanaugh and mark judge attacked her. the nominee called it a grotesque and coordinated character assassination. but this isn't a conspiracy, judge kavanaugh.

it's reality. look at what dr. ford's coming forward has triggered. people believe her for many reasons. her recall of the events is consistent with the way survivors of trauma remember things. her demeanor was forthright and open. she had everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward. and despite what many are saying, there are quite of bit of collaboration of her story. she knew brett kavanaugh. she socialized with his circle of friends of the -- friends. she told people what happened to her long before brett kavanaugh was nominated to the supreme court. his calendar attest to having him attend at least one gathering consistent with her recollection. but another reason so many people believe dr. ford is that her account is so familiar. it hasekos -- it has echos in so many of our own stories, our own

experiences. so many women have survived what happened to her, along with experiences that range from creepy looks or cat calls to rape and other violent attacks. so many women have kept their stories to themselves for fear of not being believed, for fear of retaliation or humiliation or shunning. in a column written by monica hess in "the washington post" entitled, "dear dads, your daughters told me about their assaults, this is why they never told you." she writes about all the reasons why survivors don't even tell the people closest to them about what happened to them. she writes, quote, for all the stereo types that linger about women being too fragile or emotional, these past weeks reveal what they already know, a lot of effort goes into

protecting men they love from bad things happening to them. she writes to fathers for only finding out now the daily indignities that women endure and explains why they were never told and why their loved ones are now writing to hess herself. i am going to quote extensively from this article. quote, to the father of the young woman who was assaulted by the student athlete she was hired to tiewdor. she -- tiewdor. she never told you because she didn't want to break your heart, but she told me in a long e-mail because the memory of it was breaking her heart. to the father of the junior high student who was pinned down and undressed at a gathering 30 years ago. she didn't tell you because she didn't want to see you cry, but she told me that she still remembers every detail. to the father of the teenager who was raped at a party.

you don't know about this because she was certain that if you knew you would kill her attacker and go to prison and it would be her fault. to the father of the son who was assaulted by an older man, i wish i could tell you more about what happened to him, but he wouldn't tell me, and he definitely won't tell you because manliness is important to you, he says. to all the fathers of all the silent victims, your children are quietly carrying these stories, not because they can't handle the emotions, but they are worried that you can't. they are worried that your emotions will have too many consequences, or they fear that you won't think of them the same way or you will be distraught because you didn't protect them. end quote. these words and stories are powerful, and ms. hess is right, so many survivors want to protect their loved ones. but ms. hess is also right, that

they shouldn't keep their stories in. again i quote, so to the rest of you, if you can tell your father in a way that feels safe, in a way that would bring you comfort, tell your father, tell your brothers. let them be uncomfortable. let them share some of your pain. don't let them be ignorant. end quote. and once women are able to share their experiences, what should we do with them? i agree with the author rebecca chaser who chantured so much -- apt cured so much -- captured so much, fear is a political weapon and women need to yield it in "the new york times. " i want to read some of it to you. she wrote, quote, outside the room where christine blasey ford was testifying on thursday morning, women were incandescent with rage, sorrow and horror. they were angry in a new way, a public way, an unapologetic way,

a way that is typically reserved for men and would serve men well when afternoon came. brett kavanaugh snarled and whipped furiously at the injustice of having his ascend enters to power interrupted by allegations of sexual assault. he turned their queries back on them. who has historically been allowed to be angry on their own behalf and who has not. and outside the room was a hint of how it might be changing. most of the time female anger is discouraged, repressed, ignored, swallowed, or transnormandy into something more -- transformed into something more pallable, something like tears. when women are livid, they p often -- they often weep maybe

we cry because we feel a grief because of all the things we want to say or yell because we know we can't. maybe we're sad about the same thing we're angry about. i wept as soon as dr. blasey began to speak. our social media -- on social media, i saw hundreds of messages from women who reported the same experience, a find -- finding themselves awash in tears simply in response to this woman's voice raisedded in pilot dissent -- raised in polite descent. the grief that we have to put her and ourselves through this spectacle was intense. tears are permitted for wrath because they were fundamentally misunderstood. one of my first memories from an early job in a male-dominated office where i found myself weeping was my being grabbed by

the scruff of an older man, a chilly manager -- older woman who dragged me into a stairwell. never let them see you crying, she tells me. they don't know you're furious. they think you are sad and pleased because they got to you. this provoked a period where more and more women have been in no mood to address this fury as raw and burning rage. many women are yelling, shouting, using sharpies to etch sharply worded protests on signs. many of the women shouting now are women who have not previously yelled publicly before. many of them white middle class women newly awakened to political fury and protest. part of the process of becoming mad must be recognizing that

they are not the first to be furious and that there is much to learn from the stories and histories of the livid women, many of them not white or middle class, who have never had reason not to be mad. if you are angry today or if you have been angry for a while and you're wondering if you're allowed to be as angry as you feel, let me say yes, yes you are allowed. you are a -- in fact compelled. if your anger is wanting you to want to change your life in order to change the world, then i have something incredibly important to say, don't forget how this feels. end quote. that is rebecca tracer's krl. -- article. she says, what your angry about now injustice will still exist even if you are not experiencing

or tempted to think about how you experience it and how you contribute to it. others are still experiencing it still mad. some of them are mad at you. don't forget them. don't write off their anger. stay mad for them, alongside them, let them lead you in anger. end quote. that's what i am left with, mr. president. anger, fury, disgust, and a process that could not see the truth of what dr. ford tried to tell us. the rewriters of truth are already at it in column after column on cable news shows across the country, even here on the senate floor they are casting judge kavanaugh as the victim. i was asked a few days ago whether the four democratic women on the judiciary committee have a special responsibility to address the question of sexual assault. i reject the premise of that question. it's not just up to the women in this country to stand up. men have to join us.

they have to hold themselves and other men accountable. they have to push back against the fear that those with power feel when they are challenged. we saw some of the ways that this kind of fear operates just this week among some of my senate colleagues. when approached by survivors of sexual assault who waited to talk to them about the kavanaugh nomination, they said things like grow up and insinuating that the women sharing their painful, traumatic accounts were there to enjoy themselves. enjoy themselves? we saw the president of the united states sink to a level i didn't think possible. the mocker in chief mocked dr. ford, a survivor of sexual assault. he mocked her for not remembering some peripheral things about the attack. but the thing she said she was 100% sure of was that it was brett kavanaugh who attacked

her. in case some of my colleagues don't get it, sexual assault survivors often don't remember how many steps, how many rooms, the kinds of things the president mocked dr. ford about. but they remember the attack itself with 100% accuracy. they remember how it felt, the fear, the laughter of the attackers. the kinds of insults that have been hurled at dr. ford and others in her situation are cruel and unnecessary. mr. president, i'm left with anger and determination just like millions of people across the country. i will take rebecca chaser's advise and commend it to the women of america. i will stay mad and let that anger propel us to change. going forward, i will continue to listen to women who share their stories. i will tell them i hear them, that i see them, and that i want all of us to be the change

that needs to happen in our country. mr. president, before i yield the floor, i want to read a statement from deborah ramirez dated october 6, 2018, as she says, 35 years ago the other students in the room chose to laugh and look the other way as sexual violence was perpetuated on me by brett kavanaugh. as i watched many of the senators speak and vote on the floor of the senate, i feel like i'm right back at yale where half the room is laughing and looking the other way. only this time instead of drunk college kids, it is u.s. senators who are deliberately ignores his behavior. this is how victims are isolated and silenced. but i do have corroborating witnesses speaking for me, although they were not allowed to speak to the f.b.i. and i feel extremely grateful for them and for the overwhelming amount of support that i have received and continue to receive during this

extremely difficult and painful time. there may be people with power who are looking the other way but there are millions more who are standing together speaking up about personal experiences of sexual violence and taking action to support survivors. this is truly a collective moment of survivors and allies standing together. thank you for hearing me, seeing me, and believing me. i am grateful for each and every one of you. we will not be silenced. we stand in truth and light. deborah ramirez. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank the distinguished senator from hawaii for her comments. she has had a strong voice of reason and conscience throughout this whole debate. mr. president, this is not a

normal confirmation vote. i've now served in the senate for 19 supreme court nominations , more than any other senator. i've never seen so much at stake with a single seat. i've never seen this much at stake precisely because this is about more than one seat. indeed, the integrity of two of the three coequal branches of our republic is at stake. this vote will decide whether the united states senate which at its best can serve as the conscience of the nation causes the supreme court to be indelibly tainted in the eyes of millions of americans, perhaps more than half the country. and to be clear, my opposition to judge kavanaugh is not because he was nominated by a republican president.

in my 44 years in the senate, i have voted for more republican-appointed judges than almost every single republican senator serving today. and that includes of course voting to confirm chief justice john roberts. but judge kavanaugh is not a typical conservative nominee. my opposition is driven by my firm belief that this confirmation will bring great harm to the court and to this body and to millions of working americans. judge kavanaugh has been relentlessly dishonest under oath. i'm not just referring to the fact that he's not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious things in his yearbook or whether he passed out from drunkenness. all that of course does speak to

his credibility as he concocted far fetched story after far-fetched story all to avoid facts that would corroborate the brett kavanaugh as described by dr. ford and ms. ramirez. but it's much more than that. much, much more than that. every single time judge kavanaugh has testified before the senate, in 2004, in 2006, twice in 2018, he's misled, he's dissembled. on issues both big and small. he has been faced with questions that incriminate, would place him in the middle of a controversy, he's shown he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. he misled the senate following

questions by both republicans and democrats. he misled the senate about his role in a hacking scandal and thefts from the united states senate. he misled the senate about his role in confirming several controversial judicial nominees. and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the bush administration's most extreme and eventually discredited policies. i've never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the truth in service of his own raw ambition. for decades that ambition has led him step after step to evade the truth if it's in any way going to stop his ambitions. and the truth is we're just beginning to learn about judge kavanaugh's dishonesty under

oath. his testimony during his 2004 and 2006 hearing only came to light as the judiciary committee obtained some of his white house e-mails. some. because senate republicans blocked access to 90% -- 90% of his white house record. compare that to when justice kagan was here. we made sure the republicans and democrats had 99% of her record and briefed on the remaining 1%. here 90% was blocked. so everything we've learned about his prior dishonesty comes from just 10% of his record. now many more of these records are eventually going to become

public after today. in fact, i joined a lawsuit led by senator blumenthal which is in the national archives to release that records. so if 10% of his records show dishonesty, what are the chance that the other 90% do not contain additional evidence of judge kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath? i would say the chance is about zero. and it's not just judge kavanaugh's veracity that's disqualifying. it's also his temperament, his partisan zeal. when brett kavanaugh was nominated to the d.c. circuit court of appeals in 2004, he was known only as a hyperpartisan political operative because he was seen as

so hyperpolitical, it took two years to get him confirmed. and since judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, i've wondered whether his earlier partisan zeal held him up for two years, whether that has remained. well, it was confirmed last week it does remain. i have never seen a nominee of either a republican or democrat so consumed by partisan rancor. in testimony that veered into a tirade, he angrily attacked senators, dismissed dr. ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. his conspiratorial ram begs attributing the allegations to revenge on behalf of the clintons, wherever that came from, were an insult to dr.

ford and to survivors of sexual violence everywhere. it's not helped that his patron, the president of the united states, continues to deride victims of sexual violence. former justice john paul stevens, a republican appointee, actually the first nominee i was able to vote on as a united states senator -- and i voted for -- this republican appointee, well-respected supreme court justice, declared that judge kavanaugh's unhinged performance last week demonstrates potential bias. justice stevens said that for the good of the court, judge kavanaugh's confirmation ought not to proceed. just yesterday, contrary to the

statements made on the floor of the senate, the american bar association announced that it's reopening its evaluation of judge kavanaugh's fit hness to serve as a judgment -- fitness to serve as a judgment. these developments should serve as a flashing warning sign to any senator. there are more flashing warning signs. dr. ford's credible testimony captivated a nation and inspired victims of sexual violence across the country. every minute of her testimony was credible. shee disclosed the abuse long before judge kavanaugh was a household name. she remembered vivid details of that night. she expressed 100% certainty that judge kavanaugh was her abuser. in a moment that i'll never forget, when i asked her, doctor, what is your strongest memory?

something from the incident she could not forget. she testified indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two as a teenage brett kavanaugh and a friend drunkenly assaulted dr. ford. dr. ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. i believe her just as i believed anita hill. in my view, no one who truly believes dr. ford can credibly justify voting yes. unfortunately, the senate appears to be on the brink of failing dr. ford, just as it will fail ms. ramirez and just as it failed anita hill. the f.b.i. investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any standard. and it fell short by design. we've already heard about the

e -- the attempts to share relevant information with the f.b.i., but the f.b.i., we're told by the senate republican leadership and the white house that this should not be a full investigation. the -- the senate republican leadership and the white house did everything in their power to ensure that this was not a search for truth but rather a search for cover. even a basic search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to interview judge kavanaugh and dr. ford as well as her husband and her therapist. a search for truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to interview numerous high school an college classmates that had come forward saying they could provide information about judge kavanaugh's conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegations. a search for the truth would

have allowed the f.b.i. to interview a man who wrote a sworn statement asserting that he could corroborate ms. ramirez's allegations, or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that judge kavanaugh tried to head off ms. ramirez's story before it became public. that was in clear contradiction with his testimony before the judiciary committee. a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to at least speak for july swetnick, a third accuser. as vermonters said to me last weekend when i was home, if they have nothing to hide, why the rush? if they have nothing to hide, why don't they take the time to find the whole truth? but instead of calling on the f.b.i. to take these basic

investigatory steps, inexplicably the republican-controlled judiciary committee has solely tried to discredit these women. the committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of ms. swetnick. this individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident, but instead wanted to describe the alleged sexual preferences of ms. swetnick. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on capitol hill, this shameless attempt to smear a victim violates the rape shield law. look what happened. on one hand you have the president of the united states in a rally trying to shame the victim who, of wowser, is a -- of course, is a woman.

then we have, on the other hand, ms. swetnick who was never interviewed by the f.b.i., she was ignored, she was silenced, and then, to follow the routine of this administration, she was shamed. it's outrageous that she was treated this way. they also claimed to gather where she was assaulted have refuted her testimony. these republicans know that's just false. those individuals stated publicly they do not recall the event. doctor ford told the judiciary committee this is not surprising. it's a very unremarkable party because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. one of these individuals has said publicly she believes dr. ford. republicans have claimed the investigation failed to reveal

corroborating evidence for any of these allegations, but despite the numerous restrictions placed on this investigation, that simply is not true. but thorough corroborating evidence is a thorough investigation, and this investigation fell far short. when i was a prosecutor i never would have allowed an investigation that left out so many sal yent spoints, -- points. it is a disservice to dr. ford and misswetnick -- misswetnick. it was more important to place a man on the bench was more important than these women. pushing this forward while so many leads remain unexamined will forever taint judge kavanaugh and unfortunately the supreme court itself.

for any senator who votes yes while troubling new developments on this nominee are occurring in real time, it's going to be on their conscience when more disqualifying information later emerges, and it will. i urge them to think carefully about what a yes vote would mean to the legitimacy of the supreme court, the integrity of the senate, to the increasing divisiveness in our nation. as partisan as this process has been, this is not a partisan dilemma. many prominent conservatives would make a fine supreme court justice. and as i said at the beginning of my speech, i voted for more republican nominees than any republican senator in this body. but these other people would not cast a shadow over the supreme court, a shadow over the unitedd

states senate along with it. judge kavanaugh is not that choice. to avoid risking permanent damage to the integrity of our institution as a government, i urge senators, join me in voting no on judge kavanaugh's nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. we come together today to talk about a critical nomination to the united states supreme court at a time when the court will be considering a range of issues that are critically important to the american people. right now one of the issues that a lot of americans are most

concerned about is the issue of health care. so many aspects to that issue that we can examine today. i'll get to larger overriding concerns i have with the nomination in a moment, but for now what i'll do is walk through some concerns i have when it comes to health care itself and in particular americans with disabilities. because i think this part of the debate and this part of judge kavanaugh's record and the potential impact that his decisions as an associate justice of the supreme court could have on health care itself and people with disabilities, this whole part of his record and what might happen has been maybe not unexamined, but not examined enough in this debate. i'll start with health care. if judge kavanaugh's confirmed

today, he could be the deciding vote in eliminating key health care protections for people with preexisting conditions, an action that would have serious repercussions on the health care of millions of americans. this administration and congressional republicans have been trying for the better part of the last two years to rip away health care coverage from the people who need it the most across america. republicans in both branches of government, the executive branch and the legislative branch have attempted to decimate medicaid, and although they've been unable so far to fully repeal the affordable care act here in congress, the republicans have turned to the courts to sabotage the health care system and the affordable care act.

and, by the way, while we're mentioning the medicaid program, let's remind the american people what that program is. the medicaid program is not a them program, it's an us program. it's about us, who we are as americans, whether or not we're going to take care of the family of america. and i think my home state is representative of the impact that medicaid has on people across the country. 40% of the children in pennsylvania get their health care through the medicaid program. 50% -- 50% of the people with disabilities in pennsylvania rely upon medicaid, and 60% of seniors trying to get into a nursing home for long-term care in the twilight of their lives rely upon the medicaid program. 40% of the kids, 50% of people

with disabilities, and 60% of seniors rely upon this program. some 70 million americans. so the decisions by this congress or this body and the entire legislative branch are critically important on medicaid and health care. obviously the decisions of the executive branch, but now -- but now we have to focus as well on the judiciary committee branch, especially with a nomination that could tip the balance in 5-4 decisions. judge kavanaugh has twice disagreed with rulings upholding the affordable care act. it's no coincidence he's been nominated by this president, by this administration. president trump apparently believes he can count on justice

kavanaugh were he to be confirmed to rule against the affordable care act when he was on -- when he is on the supreme court if he were to be confirmed today. and you don't take my word for this. a former law clerk of judge kavanaugh said it best when she spoke about judge kavanaugh's view of the affordable care act. quote -- quote, this is from a law clerk, no other contender on president trump's list is on record to vigorously opposing the law, unquote. the law, meaning the affordable care act that brought health care to 20 million americans, about more than half of them because we expanded medicaid. right now courts are considering whether people with preexisting conditions should continue to be protected from being charged more, from being denied coverage, or being dropped from their insurance simply because of their health status. who would ever believe that after putting into law, enacting

into law those protections for 130 million americans, who would ever think we would still be debating and that an entire political party would be in a court of law arguing that those protections are unconstitutional. it's an insult to who we are as americans. in texas v. united states, the administration has sided with 20 republican state attorneys general, and is refusing to defend the affordable care act for people with preexisting conditions. so what's at stake in this legal battle that could end up, obviously, down the road in the supreme court? it is 130 million americans with preexisting conditions, and that means people with diabetes or cancer or anything else that's a preexisting condition could have their lives grossly, adversely impacted. the supreme court might be the last line of defense to maintaining those protections for people with preexisting

conditions and a judge kavanaugh could be the deciding vote to rip away protections which are in law now -- right now -- and they could be taken away. if republicans were to win this fight, coverage for millions of americans who have these protections would be adversely impacted. that's probably an understatement. we also have to be concerned about the fundamentals of our health insurance system, the fundamental stability of our health care system, which could be undermine or worse, such a decision by the supreme court would have real-life consequences. in pennsylvania alone, 5.3 million people, including 643,000 children -- children have a preexisting condition. i'll tell you the story of one of those children.

jackson korbin, 13 years old, he lives with his mother hannah, his father michael, and his brother. jackson, henry and his pom have nunan syndrome that has bleeding problems, short stature and malformation of the rib cage. all of that in the life of one child. jackson's most troubling concern is a form of hemophilia called vaughn willowbrand disease. because of this disease he has to be careful not to cut himself or to do things that might cause him internal bleeding. this means that jackson cannot play sports, he cannot roller skate or even jump on a trampoline, the cost of his health care, including medications and treatment and specialists is more than what his parents would make in a year -- in a year.

without health insurance coverage that they are able to purchase through the affordable care act, including protections for preexisting conditions, the corbin family would either go bankrupt or jackson and his mother and his brother would have to go without treatment, of course risking their lives. last month, jackson testified in front of the judiciary committee and spoke about what judge kavanaugh's nomination meant for him, for jackson corbin. my noonan syndrome is part of who i am. it has been part of me since the day i was born and will be part of me for the rest of my life. if you destroy protections for preexisting conditions, you will leave me and all the kids and adults like me without care and without the ability to afford our care, all because of who we are, unquote. let me repeat those last few words of jackson corbin, 13 years old.

quote, without care or without the ability to afford our care, unquote. that's what we're talking about here. judge kavanaugh could very well be the deciding vote in determining the future of this child and the future of members of his family. all of us, everybody in this building today are just one illness. each of us is just one injury away from having our own preexisting condition condition if we don't have one already. maybe senators and judges and justices don't have to worry about protection for preexisting conditions. maybe they can all buy that protection one way or another. but 130 million americans have to worry and have to worry about this consequential nomination on an issue of such grave importance as health care itself and maybe most especially protections for people with preexisting conditions.

how about disabilities? judge kavanaugh's record on the rights of individuals with disabilities is troubling as well. i will give you one example. liz weintraub who like jackson testified in front of the judiciary committee in opposition to judge kavanaugh's opposition to the supreme court. i know liz well. she is 21 years old, from rockville, maryland. she has cerebral palsy and intellectual disability. she has had two loving parents and three loving sisters. for four months this year, she was on my staff as a legislative fellow. i'm not objective when it comes to liz weintraub. but here's what she told us. the work she did of course on our staff was significant. she helped organize hearings and worked on disability issues to educate our office and me as well as other senate offices about the importance of hiring people with disabilities. but list experienced low expectations in her life. she was told by educators she could never attend college.

she spent nine years in a private institution. she was told she had to work in a sheltered workshop. despite these barriers, liz persevered and achieved her dream of being a disability policy advocate. her knowledge, experience, and wisdom made my office a better place on these issues and a better place to work. it strengthened our office's ability to work on disability policy. let's get to the judge's record on these issues. judge kavanaugh on the d.c. circuit shows a pattern of siding against individuals with disabilities. he has sided with employers over employees who have a disability, making it more difficult for employers to prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under the law, and in a case called doe versus d.c., he called into question the very autonomy and

right to self-determination of people with disabilities. the case involved three women who had intellectual disabilities and lived in facilities run by the district of columbia. the district allowed medical professionals to decide when elective surgeries would be performed on these women without even consulting with them and without even trying to determine the wishes of these three women. the trial court sided with the women in this case and said the district of columbia had to attempt to determine what these women wanted before making medical decisions on their behalf. judge kavanaugh overturned the lower court decision. he questioned the basic liberty of individuals with disabilities. he allowed the government to continue making medical decisions on their behalf, these three women in the district of columbia, without ever

attempting to determine what they wanted. this decision is offensive to the american people, but it's offensive i think to people with disabilities even more so. people who have fought for decades to secure the rights of people with disabilities. the decision robbed these women of their autonomy and it robbed them of their humanity. as liz weintraub said in her testimony, i worry that if a justice on the supreme court does not believe that we as people with intellectual disabilities can make decisions for ourselves, then we will have the right to make those decisions taken away from us. quote, that is why i am opposing judge kavanaugh, unquote. these are the words of liz weintraub speaking for many americans with disabilities. i want to thank liz for her testimony and for coming forward to speak on behalf of those americans.

these decisions about these rights for people with disabilities don't just impact the individuals in the particular lawsuit. they also set a precedent for future cases and send a message about the values of our country, about whose rights we consider worthy of protection. if our courts don't protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities, then what are our courts there for? we have to ask that question. mr. president, i want to conclude with just a couple more comments. there has been a lot of debate and a lot of commentary, vigorous disagreement about the back and forth that occurred just last week, but i think i am like many americans who say i believe dr. ford's testimony. i thought she was both credible and persuasive, and i wrote the following earlier this week in

an op-ed dated october 2. quote, in describing part of her testimony, the details of a sexual assault she experienced as a 15-year-old, that made an impression on americans, of course. and then i went on to say the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the physical assault and the psychological trauma of believing she might die, unquote. i believe that testimony and that alone is troubling enough when it comes to making a determination on this nomination. fixes further concerned when i listened to the testimony of judge kavanaugh concerned about his lack of judicial temperament. i think that's an understatement in that moment. and also whether or not he could be an importion justice based upon what he said in a -- in

response to the allegations and especially what he was saying about democrats in the senate. so i will vote no for several reasons, many of them outlined with regard to health care and disability policy. i will vote no on this nomination. and i urge my colleagues to vote no as well. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in a few moments, we will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. it is time. justice gorsuch and justice sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated. today marks the 90th day since president trump nominated judge kavanaugh, so this is in line with the time frame for previous justices. what is different, though, about

this nomination is the manifest unfairness in the way it was conducted and in the tone of some senators as well as the special interest groups that support them. this institution used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, but you wouldn't know it now on this nomination. the senator from maine said yesterday that we have hit rock bottom when it comes to the judicial confirmation process, and sadly i agree. this despite the heroic efforts of senator grassley who along with his staff have been magnificent as chairman of the judiciary committee. what precipitated this embarrassing period for the senate was the intentional and dribt withholding -- deliberate withholding of dr. ford's allegations from the judiciary committee and judge kavanaugh until the 11th hour, and then publicly ambushing everyone else

concerned. it has been a process that -- in words that echo from another dark part for the senate, the mccarthy hearings. it has been cruel, reckless, and indecent, both to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. still, despite these high jinks and the weaponization of the confirmation process, we went -- we bent over backwards to try to accommodate dr. ford once she said she wanted to come before the committee. we know she requested confidentiality as her allegations were investigated. she did not consent to nor authorize the release of her letter. she didn't want a public spectacle. the judiciary committee staff even offered to fly to california on a bipartisan basis and interview her confidentially. but this offer was not even shared with her by her partisan lawyers. in other words, she said she never understood that offer was

on the table. she thought the only way she could tell her story is in the midst of the three-ring circus that that hearing became. but after dr. ford, the damage to her was done when her identity became known, we invited dr. ford to testify. she came and did so, and i respect and admire her courage. it could not have been easy. we listened respectfully to her story. we took it very seriously. we treated her the same way we would want our wives, our daughters to be treated, and we tried to learn the facts, cold, hard facts as elicited by an expert in dealing with sexual assault cases. we all know that after the hearing what that attorney told us because it game public. she said as a prosecutor, she would never recommend charges

under these circumstances because in her view there was no corroboration of dr. ford's account, and there were inconsistencies in her story regarding the place, the time, and the people involved in relevant events. in other words, this was not a case of he said, she said. it was a case of she said, they said, including everyone dr. ford claimed was a witness. not only no corroboration, the alleged witnesses refuted her claim, including her best friend, leland keyser who said she never met brett kavanaugh. then even after all of that, even after hiding information that should have been shared confidentially with the judiciary committee, even after the outrageous conduct by some senators at the first hearing intentionally violating committee rules and seeking delay after delay, even after that, we took another additional

step to address any lingering concerns. the f.b.i. launched a supplemental background investigation. there are two words to note about this investigation -- supplemental and independent. supplemental because judge kavanaugh has had six other previous background investigations. this was the seventh. independent because now opponents are saying that, well, the investigation was merely checking a box. it wasn't thorough or comprehensive enough. but that simply doesn't jive with the facts. the f.b.i. was told to investigate current credible allegations, and they had a free rein to contact anyone they wanted, and they contacted many of the people that our democratic colleagues, dr. ford and ms. ramirez themselves said were eyewitnesses or persons with relevant knowledge. i'm talking about folks like

mark judge and others. so opponents are trying to have it both ways -- demand an investigation but then badmouth it when it doesn't reveal what they hoped it would. politics should not have and didn't dictate the terms of this supplemental background investigation. the f.b.i. knows how to do its work, and now opponents of this nomination should accept its findings. but, mr. president, this has never been a search for the truth by senators who had already announced their opposition to this nomination. some of them even before judge kavanaugh was named. rather, it has become a matter of delay, defeat, and destroy. i do believe the senator from arizona and others who join in his request did us a great favor by insisting on the f.b.i. supplemental background investigation. the american people can feel better that leads have been followed and exhausted for those

still interested in a search for the facts. the american people now know that we took it upon ourselves to take one last step to dispel the doubts about judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the highest court in the land, and that step is now complete. so to senators flake, collins, and others who requested the background check, i say thank you. both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford have been treated badly throughout this process. dr. ford has been treated less as a real person than as a poker chip in a card game. her wisheses for confidentiality -- wisheses for confidentiality were ignored. this whole sad cher charade -- charade has been unfair to judge

kavanaugh. this should have been under procedures and timelines designed to protect both the accuser and the accused instead we got mob rule. some blamed judge kavanaugh for his righteous indignation and impassioned defense at a second hearing, but as somebody who served for 13 years on the bench myself, i know the difference between deciding a case as a judge for which judge kavanaugh's temperament has been universally praised, and defending one self against character assassination and personal destruction. judge kavanaugh understands the difference too, and i have no doubt whatsoever about his judicial temperament. but imagine what this has been like for judge kavanaugh's parents, for his wife, for his children, for the friends and colleagues who know the real brett kavanaugh.

shocking or embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it. i am disappointed more than i can say at those who have unleashed this unjustified attacks on the judge and his family and disappointed in their lack of any empathy for remorse for what they have put them through. no empathy, no remorses, none. for some of them it seems that the end justifies the means. chew good people up, spit them out, no problem. it's all in a day's work. after the dust settles on this dark period, we need to think about the damage all of this has done to the senate as an institution and to the judiciary committee confirmation process that we most certainly will embark upon again in the near future. it is my hope, it is my prayer

that the politics of personal destruction simply because you don't agree with the nominee's judicial philosophy or the president that nominated him or her will stop. the low road is not available to us anymore because there is no lower road than the one we have been on. it's my hope that some of the tactics we've seen, intimidation, bullying, violating the rules, taunting members, trying to coerce them through bribes, carpet bombing them with tv ads, sending them coat hangers in the mail, screaming at them in the hallway. these cannot become the new normal, and so we cannot reward those tactics. i guarantee that if these tactics had succeeded in

blocking judge kavanaugh, they would become the new normal, and that ought to chasten all of us. i we've learned a painful lesson these past few weeks and will strive to do better. i pledge my good faith and best efforts to do so to try to help. we should recall the not so distant past when ruth ginsburg, the former general counsel of the american civil liberties union was confirmed by 96-3, when justice scalia was confirmed by 98-0, and john paul stevens was confirmed by a vote of 98-0, as well. in a rational, logical world, judge kavanaugh should have similarly lopsided numbers, that is people were willing to get past their tribalism and look

our nominee's record, look at the more than 300 opinions he's authored, the decisions he's authored that the supreme court has unanimously embraced, if they would look at his scholarship, talk to his former colleagues and law clerks. if opponents were willing to do that honestly and thoroughly, they would have found a brilliant individual who cuts no corners in his legal analysis, who let's the chips fall where they may, and respects the very important, but limited, role of the judiciary in our constitutional system. in my view, a vote against judge kavanaugh is an endorsement of the way that the opponents have mishandled and abused the confirmation process as well as the shameful tactics they have employed. a no vote neglects all that the is and all he accomplished based

on unproven allegations about adolescence. it would establish a dangerous precedent and legitimatize mob rule, including the presumption of guilt in violation of everything our constitution -- the presiding officer: restore order to the galleries. the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it would establish a dangerous preps dent. -- precedent. the presiding officer: as a reminder to our guests, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it would establish a dangerous precedent and legitimatize mob rule, including the presumption of guilt that everything our

constitution and fundamental negotiations of fairness stand for. some say we are a nation divided, but i'm not so pessimistic as some. i actually hope we can all learn. we must learn, i believe, from this cruel, reckless, and indecent episode, but a no vote will not unite us. it will help reward despicable tactics and set a new ugly precedent, it will only encourage the spurning of tradition and the flouting of agreed upon rules, norms, and process. we should not ignore, we cannot acquiesce in or condone what has happened here. we should send a message loud and clear that the united states senate will not be intimidated. i will cast my vote in favor of judge kavanaugh's confirmation for the -- to the supreme court of the united states and i hope

my colleagues will join me. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend until the sergeant at arms will restore order to the galleries. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the galleries. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the galleries. as a reminder to our guests in the gallery, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. let me talk about the f.b.i. interview that has been raised repeatedly from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. it was our request after we heard complaints of dr. ford and allegations that there be a

thorough investigation on the democratic side we asked for that repeatedly from the republican majority. it wasn't until senator flake and some of his republican colleagues made a point of saying they wouldn't move to go forward with this hearing without an f.b.i. investigation that it finally was agreed to. let me also add that statements have been made publicly by the public spokesman at the white house about how the witnesses were chosen for this f.b.i. investigation, according to mr. shaw, who works in the white house, he told us that a list of witnesses was sent by senate republicans to the white house and they were included in their request. that is not the investigation we were looking for. we were hoping the f.b.i. would revert to its professional status and to interview all of the witness ps who -- witnesses who were relevant and certainly among those relevant witnesses would have been dr. ford herself who could have been questioned under penalty of criminal prosecution if she misled or

lied to the f.b.i., who could have added substantial corroborating information, she was never called on, neither was judge kavanaugh by the f.b.i. dr. ford provided eight different witnesses that she thought should be called to back up her side of the story, not a single one of them was called by the f.b.i. ms. ramirez suggested 20 witnesses be called by the f.b.i. on her behalf, not one of them was called. this was not the f.b.i. investigation which we sought nor is it clear the charges against judge kavanaugh that were raised by dr. ford based on the fact that it was a scant interview that involved some ten minuteses -- witnesses in a matter of just a few days with a limited roster of people who were going to be questioned. let me speak to the matter at hand in a larger context. i've been in public life for a few years, but i've never seen the public reaction to this particular nomination and the hearings leading up to it that i've seen -- than i've seen in

this case. i went back to chicago on friday, before i could get off the airplane, people were talking to me, passengers at random about and what the day before when dr. ford and judge kavanaugh testified before our commit. the same thing happened with cab drivers, the doorman at the hotel holding an umbrella in the rain and talking about the testimony given to the judiciary committee. for the next three days everywhere i turned every person had a comment to make. america was tuned in and watching carefully because they knew how important this hearing was. it wasn't just the nomination for someone to serve on the supreme court. it was critically important to americans to know who would and that person, what their views were when it came to the health of women, the protection of our health insurance, our privacy, our right to vote. and it also was very clear that we held this hearing in the context of a national debate on sexual harassment and sexual violence.

is it any surprise that this explosive issue, which has touched corporate boardrooms, our churches, sports, congress, has now been raised in our debate over a nomination to our highest court? and i ask my colleagues, is there a single one of us in the last two weeks who has not had an experience with someone coming forward either in writing or in person to tell you of their experience when it came to sexual harassment and sexual violence? just a few minutes ago i read the latest letters we received in my office, two women from the state of illinois who told me in their letters they are saying for the first time what happened to them many years ago and how much they identified with dr. ford and what she had gone through. that is a fact of life. the fact that this touched a nerve to so many americans, and particularly to women who have gone through this experience, should put this whole debate in context. it should not be cheapened or lessened by political charges many we ought to understand the

gravity of this debate in light of the cultural change we are facing in america. this afternoon we faced a day of reckoning, those of us who count votes for a living know how this will end. i want to make it clear there's something we need to remember. one of the lowsest votes in -- closest votes in the history of the supreme court will occur this afternoon with judge kavanaugh's nomination. you have to go back 137 years in american history to find a closer vote for a supreme court justice. that tells you the seriousness with which this matter has been considered and undertaken by members of the senate and how divided we are on this nomination. but i want to ask my colleagues not just to reflect on this afternoon but to reflect on tomorrow. what about the future of this supreme court, this important, critical institution in our constitution? six years ago, in the days of about the nfib v.sabaleus

decision, debating the affordable care act a pew research poll found that public approval of the supreme court had reached an all-time low. citizens united and bush v. gore had branded the supreme court as a political tool in the eyes of most americans. chief justice roberts stepped in and wrote a decision in that case which infuriated conservatives but brought mement terry medical -- momentary credibility to the cower. filling this critical kennedy vacancy with judge kavanaugh will again raise the question about supreme court politics. chief justice roberts, are you watching? and what can we expect from this newest member of the court, brett kavanaugh? after his contentious nomination process, clarence thomas gave us ten years of brewing silence --

of silence on the supreme court. what can we expect from this new justice. will he be the soup kitchen volunteer or federalist society favorite? will he be the man to raged at the clintons and promised revenge for his ordeal, or the man who impressed senator collins? will he be a justice ever grateful top trump who nominated him or a justice who honors the rule of law more than any political leader or political party? what about this senate? what should the next supreme court vacancy look like? will we continue to follow the merrick garland plow it through playbook of judicial appointments at any cost, freezing out a nominee to the supreme court for almost one year, abandoning the blue-slip process in the senate judiciary committee, ignoring american bar association ratings, overturning rules protecting debate,

concealing documents, tweeting confidential reports? when we sweep aside all of the rules and traditions of the senate judiciary committee just to pile up more and more republican appointments to the court, what is left? thomas moore in "a man for all seasons" said famously, quote, and when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide the laws all being flat? and if you cut them down, do you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? so will we establish and reestablish rules and procedures that show mutual respect for one another as senators and respect for this body we are honored to serve? i sincerely hope that conversation begins and begins soon. i want to say a word about the leaders of the judiciary committee. chuck grassley is my friend. he has been my friend for a long time. we do a lot of legislation together. we have a difference of

political views. he's a loyal republican. i'm a loyal democrat. we have adjoining states. we find some things that we can work on in common. i want to say personally to him thank you for your leadership on this committee. i think there are moments when the white house and even your staff got the best of you, but i trust you, chuck grassley, in terms of where this committee is going. you have it within your power to restore the tara digz of the senate -- traditions of the senate judiciary committee, and i hope you will. i join you in that effort. i want to say a word about dianne feinstein, too. she has been the subject of more texts by my colleagues than i have ever heard any member face in the senate. it's just not fair. dianne feinstein is a woman of integrity. she is a person who is caring. she has given a major part of her life in public service at so many different levels. some of the charges and innuendo which i have heard on the floor of the senate are unbefitting this body, and she does not deserve them.

i thank senator collins -- thanked senator collins yesterday for specifically saying that at her remarks. i couldn't be more happy than to join her in those comments. and i want to say a word about protesting and mob rule. i will tell you that if you believe in free speech and our right as a citizen to petition our government, then you accept some tough consequences. there are things that are said and done in the name of free speech which you may not agree with. violence is never acceptable. let me make that clear. but the decision that is about to be made in the united states is not being made by a mob. it is not mob rule. it is a decision made by men and women of the united states senate who are acting in accordance with the united states constitution. and one last point on the subject. this is one that i always remind my colleagues and even my opponents of. i believe the hottest ring in

hell is reserved for those who attack our children and our families. if you want to take me out on an issue, so be it. leave my family and my kids alone. that ought to be a rule on both sides of the aisle. there is another issue which we need to face squarely. will victims of sexual violence be more or less likely to step forward and tell their stories after this high-profile political battle ends? to dr. christine blasey ford, to her husband and her children, i will never forget your brave testimony last thursday. you gave new meaning to the term civic duty. you spoke not just for yourself but for millions of sexual violence victims who will never, ever have that opportunity. i'm sorry, genuinely sorry for the pain that you and your family have endured, and i'm sorry you were mocked by president trump at his rally in mississippi last tuesday. "the washington post" reported, and i quote, the president laid

into ford with the ruthlessness of an attack dog and the pacing of a standup comedian. the crowd roared with laughter and applause, end of quote. no one could have been surprised with the president's performance, and when i hear repeated over and over again on the other side of the aisle we wanted to treat her just like we have our -- we would have our wife or daughter to be treated, that certainly didn't happen when it came to the president's comments. we owe it to our wives, daughters, granddaughters, and all the women and men in this country who have been victimized to treat them with respect, not ridicule. we owe it to these victims to listen, learn, and stand with them as they relive their shattering experiences. i believe the debate over this nomination has created a stronger force in our nation for justice for victims of sexual violence, and i hope those who step forward know that they are not alone. thank you for your courage.

tomorrow's another day. we are blessed to live in a democracy which protects our freedoms and gives our citizens the last word at the polling place. today i will cast my vote in the senate in opposition to the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for iowa. mr. durbin: before senator grassley starts, i ask unanimous consent that a judiciary staffer in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that

following my remarks and those of senators schumer and mcconnell, all postcloture time be considered expired on this nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i come one final time in support of judge kavanaugh's confirmation to serve as associate justice of the united states supreme court. democratic leaders did everything in their power to make judge kavanaugh's confirmation about anything except his outstanding academic qualifications. the democratic leader has promised to oppose judge kavanaugh's confirmation from day one and use every play in the book to accomplish that goal even though the senate had access to more of judge kavanaugh's records than we have had for any other supreme court

nominee, democratic leaders tried to bury the judiciary committee in mountains of irrelevant paperwork. when routine process arguments failed, they resorted to outright character assassination of the judge. their smear campaign featured faceless allegations of -- baseless allegations of perjury and claims that as a teenager, he participated in gang rapes of women. i have been around long enough to see ugly left-wing smear campaigns against supreme court nominees, but this was beyond the pale, even beyond judge thomas and anita hill, and i was there. i'm encouraged that most of my colleagues had the courage to stand against the politics of

personal -- personal destruction ignored in the media circus that the democrat leaders created was judge kavanaugh's extraordinary record as a judge and also as a citizen. i have said from the day the president announced judge kavanaugh's nomination on july 9 that judge kavanaugh is quite possibly the most qualified person ever nominated to the supreme court. he has spent 25 years of his career at the highest levels of the government, including the last 12 years as a judge on the second most important federal court. judge kavanaugh's record on the d.c. circuit has been remarkable, outstandingly remarkable. on a court containing some of the brightest legal minds, judge

kavanaugh has set himself apart. the supreme court in at least 12 separate cases adopted positions advanced in judge kavanaugh's lower court opinions. as liberal law professor amir wrote in "the new york times," quote, good appellate judges faithfully follow the supreme court. great ones influence and help steer it. several of judge kavanaugh's most important ideas and arguments have found their way into supreme court opinions. end of professor amar's quote. judge kavanaugh will not only bring his keen intellect and deep knowledge of the law to the supreme court, he will bring some other very important judicial characteristics as

well. first among these is a proper understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional system. he knows that a judge should interpret and apply law as written, not how he wishes it were written, because, as we all know, it's congress' job to write the laws, not judges. he has explained in numerous cases that the fundamental goal of the separation of powers under our constitutional system is the protection of individual liberty. he has interpreted the constitution according to text, history, and tradition, not his own personal views, and that is exactly the type of a person we

need on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has also demonstrated judicial independence and courage. as an example, in the two years after he was appointed to the d.c. circuit by president george w. bush, he ruled against bush administration agencies on 23 cases. so don't let anybody tell you that he is obligated to a president trump. we can expect that justice kavanaugh will be beholden to no one and nothing except the constitution. judge kavanaugh also has a well-earned reputation for collegiality. he has an excellent relationship with all of his colleagues in the d.c. circuit, and his

judicial record demonstrates the same. indeed, judge kavanaugh was in the majority in 97% of the cases that he participated in in that d.c. circuit. his democratic-appointed colleagues were as likely to join majority opinions written by judge kavanaugh as his republican-appointed colleagues were. he will bridge the divide in the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has also shown a dedication to public service, to mentorship, and to diversity. he spent all but three years of his legal career in public service. judge kavanaugh is a proven mentor to law students and young

lawyers. judge kavanaugh has taught courses at harvard law school and other top law schools for many years. the senate judiciary committee received a letter in support of his confirmation from these former students. they wrote, quote, we will have differing views on political issues surrounding the confirmation process, but we will agree on one thing -- judge kavanaugh is a rigorous thinker, a devoted teacher, and a gracious person. end of quote. federal judges also play a very important role in mentoring the next generation of lawyers by hiring law clerks. judge kavanaugh has clearly taken seriously this mentor ship role. his former law clerks submitted a letter to this committee

strongly supporting his confirmation. i quote from that letter -- it was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks, end of quote. one of the areas where judge kavanaugh has had a particular impact is his commitment to diversity. more than half of his law clerks have been female. when confirmed to the supreme court, his class of law clerks will be all female, the first time in the history of the supreme court. judge kavanaugh's female law clerks sent the committee a letter, and this is what this

letter from the law clerks says quote, we know all too well that women in the workplace still face challenges, inequality and even harassment. among other things, women do not enjoy a representative share of prestigious clerkships or high-profile legal positions. but this committee and the american public more broadly should be aware of the important work judge kavanaugh has done to remedy those disparities. in our view, the judge has been one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers, end of quote. well, as i think about history history, it leads me to this, the confirmation of judge

kavanaugh is particularly meaningful to me. 31 years ago left-wing groups and their senate allies fired the opening shots in the judicial confirmation wars. they engaged at that time in unprecedented character assassination against president reagan's nominee, judge robert bork. since then, they have only escalated this war, slandering several republican nominees to the supreme court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. so then, as history tells us more than three decades later, left-wing groups and their democratic allies in this body went back to the very same

playbook. they tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that judge robert bork was supposed to fill. they succeeded 31 years ago, but this time they failed. so i look forward to voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as justice kavanaugh the next time i see him. i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i know that the democratic leader is scheduled to speak next. mr. kyl: if there is a minute

that i can take in between there, i just wanted to comment on the colleague that spoke yesterday, senator collins. i had wanted to come to the floor to speak on her behalf, but too many other people were speaking at that time. people remarked on her comments that they reflected the fact that she does her homework, and she indeed did. and i simply wanted to relay this anecdote. when i helped to introduce judge kavanaugh to my fellow former senators, former colleagues, i think of all of the meetings that we had, and many of them were with lawyers who are senators, probably the most thoroughly meeting of all was that held with senator collins. she had clearly done her homework. the interview with judge kavanaugh consumed more than two hours, without a break. it was a grilling that could have been done by any fine lawyer because she had clearly done her homework and was very

well prepared. and i know she did further follow-up after that. but i do want to commend her for the depth and the breadth of her comments. and as "the wall street journal" this morning said, mr. president, she not only debated like it used to be done in this body with evidence and sound reasoning, but also a reference to our founding principles and the higher things that should motivate our public service and our discussions here on the senate floor. so i wanted to take this opportunity to commend her for her remarks, but to tell those who don't know her that this was par for the course. her performance was magnificent but it was not out of the ordinary for senator collins. i just wanted my colleagues to know that. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum, mr. president? the pr: we are in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. you now, in a short time, the senate will take a final vote on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. the road that led us here has been bitter, angry, and partisan. steeped in hypocrisy and hyperbole and resentment and outrage. from start to finish, president trump's nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court has been one of the saddest moments in the history of the senate. when the history of the senate is written, this chapter will be a flashing red warning light of

what to avoid. truly, judge kavanaugh's confirmation is a low moment for the senate, for the court, for the country. the republican majority has conducted one of the least transparent, least fair, most biased processes in senate history, slanting the table from the very beginning to produce their desired result. why do i say this? because they withheld over 90% of the nominee's record from the senate and the american people, because they refused to allow dr. ford to call a single corroborating witness at the hearing, including the only other eyewitness to the incident, because they refused to have an independent investigation of the facts

before the hearing in order to inform the questioning, because they hired an outside prosecutor to question dr. ford as if she were on trial. because the white house kept the f.b.i. investigation on a short leash, dictating the scope and even the kinds of questions the f.b.i. was allowed to ask. because republicans senators, sensing after dr. ford's testimony that a debate about the truth and facts was not working, adopted a cynical new strategy to shout, pound the table, and portray judge kavanaugh as the helpless victim of some unseen partisan conspiracy. because the president of the united states -- because the president of the united states

stooping to new depths, even for him, chose to stand before a crowd of thousands and cruelly ridicule a survivor of sexual assault. and because this grossly distorted, biased, unfair process run by the republican majority, the senate, is about to elevate a nominee who doesn't belong on the nation's highest bench. now, why doesn't judge kavanaugh belong on the highest -- on the bench in the nation's highest court? judge kavanaugh doesn't belong on the bench because he obscured his views, shrouding his jurisprudence in smoke so thick the american people would never know what he really believed. kavanaugh doesn't belong on the bench because he was chosen by a

president and a far-right organization, both dedicated to overturning and undermining roe v. wade, and he did not a thing to refute the presumption that he would want to overturn it, too. judge kavanaugh doesn't belong on the bench because he was chosen by far-right organizations that are bent on repealing health care protections for americans with preexisting conditions, and he did nothing to refute the presumption that he would, too. judge kavanaugh doesn't belong on the bench because he believes that presidents should not be subject to investigations of any kind while in office, a distortion of our founding principle, that no person is above the law. judge kavanaugh does not belong on the bench because his jurisprudence is deeply skeptical of