[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 161 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6368-S6375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, these are the remarks I would have given 
at this morning's Judiciary Committee markup after the perfunctory and 
dismissive way the chairman treated the minority members of the 
Judiciary Committee. I walked out in protest. Here are the remarks I 
would have given at the committee markup.
  I am in disbelief that we are here today voting on Brett Kavanaugh's 
nomination to the Supreme Court. Outrageous does not begin to describe 
the present circumstances. Yesterday we heard from Dr. Christine Blasey 
Ford, who spoke with genuine and raw emotional power about being 
sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Even though it was more than 30 
years ago, her memory of the assault was clear and vivid. This kind of 
recall is typical of sexual assault survivors. She was sincere and 
authentic. She was 100 percent credible, and I believe her.

  By contrast, Brett Kavanaugh came to this committee and refused to 
give us straight answers. He would not call for an FBI investigation. 
He repeatedly stated that the other people who were at the gathering 
where Dr. Ford was attacked had ``rebutted her testimony.'' That is not 
true. His alleged accomplice in the attack, Mark Judge, claimed he 
didn't remember--a far cry from rebutting her statement. He claimed he 
didn't remember, refused to testify, and then went into hiding. Patrick 
Smyth and Leland Keyser said they simply don't remember--again, hardly 
a rebuttal.
  Dr. Ford said yesterday:

       I don't expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this 
     evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of 
     their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable 
     happened to them that evening.

  In fact, even though she doesn't remember, Leland Keyser said she 
believes Dr. Ford's account.

[[Page S6369]]

  In addition to making misleading statements--which is a pattern with 
Judge Kavanaugh--he accused Democratic Senators of coordinating a plot 
to sabotage his nomination. Clearly, he was speaking to an audience of 
one: President Trump. A nominee for the Supreme Court so rattled that 
he would buy into a vast conspiracy theory is astounding and dangerous. 
Let's not forget his exact words. Judge Kavanaugh said:

       This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and 
     orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger 
     about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has 
     been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 
     behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from 
     outside left-wing opposition groups.

  With that nakedly political screed, Brett Kavanaugh showed us who he 
really is: a partisan political operative with an agenda--the very 
worry that kept him from confirmation to the DC Circuit for 3 years. 
His own words reinforced a concern that I and many of us here have that 
he cannot be a fair and impartial judge.
  Setting aside the unvarnished political view--from a potential 
Supreme Court Justice, no less--the crux of the matter before us today 
is whether Dr. Ford was credible when she said that she is 100 percent 
sure that Brett Kavanaugh is the person who sexually assaulted her. On 
that issue, Brett Kavanaugh admitted, even without watching her 
testimony, that Dr. Ford did not play a part and was not part of any 
imagined partisan plot. So what we are left with is his own recognition 
that Dr. Ford has no political motive and no reason to lie. I challenge 
anyone who watched her testimony to claim that she did not tell us the 
truth.
  Dr. Ford wasn't the only woman to come forward with an account of 
sexual misconduct against the nominee. Two other women have provided 
credible accounts that deserve real investigation. But whether it is 
one woman or three women, my Republican colleagues are letting nothing 
stop them from plowing through to get Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme 
Court as soon as possible. Even before the committee had a chance to 
hear from Dr. Ford, Chairman Grassley had already scheduled today's 
vote.
  By voting to support this nominee, Republican colleagues are sending 
a message loud and clear: Sexual assault survivors should not come 
forward because we are not going to listen to you. They will not be 
believed, and their lives will be up-ended in the process. That is 
exactly what happened to Dr. Ford.
  As far as I am concerned, there was never a serious effort by the 
committee to get to the truth. Today's vote signals to the men and boys 
in America that you can demean and assault women--especially if you are 
in a position of power and influence. There will be no consequences. It 
won't even prevent you from becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
  Yesterday, accusations flew from the other side of the aisle about 
deliberate efforts to make up accusations and undermine Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination, but Democrats didn't need to manufacture 
additional reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. As I have 
maintained before, his record demonstrates a pattern of misstating the 
facts. He wasn't candid yesterday. He wasn't candid in his testimony to 
the committee when he testified at his 2004 and 2006 confirmation 
hearings or when he testified at his confirmation hearing for this 
nomination in 2018.
  I also found his candor lacking in the judicial opinions and legal 
arguments he authored. For example, as my colleagues have talked about 
in the past, Judge Kavanaugh was not honest with the committee in 2004 
and 2006 when asked about matters that he worked on, and his emails 
from the White House show that he was not honest about his awareness of 
receiving stolen documents from Manny Miranda. In a case I am familiar 
with--Rice v. Cayetano--he demonstrated what could only be called a 
deliberate misstatement of the facts that he presented to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. He had to have known that what he wrote about the 
politics and culture of Native Hawaiians was not true. He filed an 
amicus brief in that case, and at his hearing a few weeks ago, Judge 
Kavanaugh misstated the holdings of Rice and refused to correct his 
misstatement when I gave him a chance to clarify.
  I will say that I am one of the few people in the Senate who attended 
the oral argument in Rice. I know what the Supreme Court based its 
decision on, and he totally misstated the Supreme Court's decision.
  Advocates for our Native communities are stepping up and taking 
notice. The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and the Alaska 
Federation of Natives issued statements that strongly urge the Senate 
to reject the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. They and other groups 
representing indigenous peoples have come forward to explain how Judge 
Kavanaugh's views of the rights of indigenous peoples are deeply 
flawed. These are the kinds of attitudes that he expressed in his 
amicus brief in Rice v. Cayetano.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
statements in opposition of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination or that 
criticize his views of indigenous people be printed in the Record. They 
are from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian 
Affairs, and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  State of Hawaii,


                              Department of Hawaii Home Lands,

                                               September 18, 2018.
     Statement of Hawaiian Homes Commission Chairman Jobie 
         Masagatani on the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to Serve 
         as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

       Aloha Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: 
     Having reviewed his writings and his statements in public 
     proceedings, we find that Judge Kavanaugh neglected to 
     recognize the history of actions by the United States 
     government that has clearly established a trust 
     responsibility not only on the part of the United States, but 
     also the State of Hawaii for the lands that were set aside 
     under Federal law in 1921 to provide for a permanent homeland 
     for native Hawaiians (Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920) 
     and for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians 
     (Hawaii Admissions Act of 1959).
       The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act set aside approximately 
     203,500 acres of land in what was then a Territory of the 
     United States, the Territory of Hawaii, to assure that the 
     indigenous, native people of Hawaii could be returned to 
     their lands.
       In the ensuing years, in the exercise of its constitutional 
     authority, the U.S. Congress enacted more than 160 Federal 
     laws designed to address the conditions of native Hawaiians. 
     Additionally, upon its admission into the Union of States in 
     1959, the United States and the State of Hawaii agreed that 
     the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii 
     should reflect their respective responsibilities, including 
     trust responsibilities, for the lands and resources 
     designated to provide for the betterment of the conditions of 
     native Hawaiians.
       The lands and resources authorized under Federal law to be 
     reserved for native Hawaiians in 1921 are today administered 
     by the Hawaiian Homes Commission and the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       Our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the 
     beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act are of 
     paramount importance to existing and future generations of 
     the indigenous, native people of Hawaii, to the State of 
     Hawaii, and to the United States.
       We cannot embrace nor endorse the views of those, like 
     Judge Kavanaugh, who would deny our history, the Federal and 
     State laws which have been enacted on the foundation of that 
     history, including the right of the indigenous, native people 
     of Hawaii to exercise self-determination under Federal law 
     and policy.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Hawai`i,


                                   Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

                                               September 24, 2018.
     Re Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme 
         Court.

       Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: The 
     Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) greatly appreciates this 
     opportunity to provide comments regarding the nomination of 
     Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the 
     United States Supreme Court. In particular, given that 
     Supreme Court precedent pertaining to OHA has become the 
     subject of questions during Judge Kavanaugh's nomination 
     hearing, our agency is compelled to clarify the record as it 
     pertains to our organization, our work to better the 
     conditions of Native Hawaiians, and the rights and status of 
     our beneficiaries as Indigenous people.
       As Judiciary Committee Member Mazie K. Hirono indicated 
     during Judge Kavanaugh's nomination hearing, Native Hawaiians 
     are the original, first people of the Hawaiian Archipelago, 
     who exercised sovereignty for at

[[Page S6370]]

     least a thousand years prior to recorded contact with the 
     Western world. Congress has acknowledged that ``. . . . prior 
     to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native 
     Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, 
     subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a 
     sophisticated language, culture, and religion.'' The Native 
     Hawaiian people established and maintained the Kingdom of 
     Hawai`i, first as a united monarchical government, and later 
     as a constitutional monarchy, at all times under the 
     leadership of a Native Hawaiian head of state.
       Judge Kavanaugh's description of the Rice decision may have 
     left some Committee Members and observers with another 
     impression. Senator Hirono asked the nominee about an amicus 
     brief he submitted in Rice, as well as an op-ed he wrote for 
     The Wall Street Journal, in which he argued that OHA's very 
     purpose was inconsistent with the principles and language of 
     the U.S. Constitution. When asked to explain these views, 
     Judge Kavanaugh stated that by a vote of 7-2, the majority of 
     the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed with him, and that the 
     Court found violations of both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
     Amendments.
       This is erroneous.
       As stated earlier, the majority's decision was limited to 
     the manner in which OHA's trustees were elected under the 
     Fifteenth Amendment. To quote U.S. Supreme Court Justice John 
     Roberts, then an attorney representing the State of Hawai`i 
     in the Rice case, ``. . . the majority's opinion was very 
     narrowly written and expressly did not call into question the 
     Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the public trust for the benefit 
     of Hawaiians and native Hawaiians, but only the particular 
     voting mechanism by which the trustees are selected.'' In 
     limiting its holding to OHA's means of electing trustees, the 
     majority chose not to adopt arguments and conclusions made by 
     then-practicing attorney Brett Kavanaugh, with respect to 
     OHA's purpose and mission.
       The extreme nature of Judge Kavanaugh's arguments, both his 
     examples and his conclusions, may have played a role in the 
     majority's failure to incorporate them in Rice. For example, 
     he compared OHA's mission of serving Hawaii's Indigenous 
     people to an interracial marriage ban to maintain white 
     supremacy. He argued that allowing Native Hawaiians to elect 
     their own trustees to manage their trust ``. . . could usher 
     in an extraordinary racial patronage and spoils system'' of 
     national consequence. Little explanation is given as to why 
     treatment of the Indigenous people of Hawai`i in a manner 
     similar to the treatment of other Indigenous people in the 
     United States would have such dramatic consequences. At the 
     time of his writing, Judge Kavanaugh may not have been 
     familiar with Congress's clear legislative understanding that 
     its relationship with Native Hawaiians is based on its 
     recognition of Native Hawaiians as an Indigenous people and 
     not based on race.
       Through the process of the Committee's review of a portion 
     of Judge Kavanaugh's writings during his time with the Bush 
     Administration, we learned that he continued to hold and 
     advance extreme views against Native Hawaiian rights after 
     Rice. Disregarding the Court's decision not to adopt his 
     arguments against the constitutionality of Native Hawaiian 
     programs, Judge Kavanaugh offered the same arguments as legal 
     advice when reviewing administration testimony on 
     legislation. Given his reported acknowledgement of his lack 
     of exposure to Indigenous people's law, it is concerning that 
     he has held so tightly to arguments hostile to Native 
     Hawaiians.
       His past actions and the recent nomination hearing leave 
     OHA with many doubts. We sincerely hope that if a case 
     concerning Native Hawaiian rights comes before Judge 
     Kavanaugh's court, be it the D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme 
     Court, he will look more closely at the facts before the 
     court. Facts that include the actions that Congress, the 
     Executive, and the State of Hawai`i have all taken, within 
     the framework of the U.S. Constitution, in recognizing the 
     unique status of Native Hawaiians. During his hearing, Judge 
     Kavanaugh acknowledged Congress's ``substantial'' authority 
     to deal with matters concerning Native people, though he 
     offered few specifics beyond that statement. Judge Kavanaugh 
     may find it interesting that in the years following Rice, 
     Congress and the Executive have continued to pass legislation 
     and establish programs to benefit Native Hawaiians, regularly 
     with the acknowledgement of the legal and political 
     relationship OHA has articulated throughout this letter.
       In closing, OHA hopes that this letter has brought some 
     clarity to questions raised as part of the process of 
     considering Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. OHA hopes that the 
     Committee understands the need we feel to clarify the record 
     about Rice, and to address certain arguments espoused by 
     Judge Kavanaugh prior to his taking the bench, which are not 
     only inaccurate, but threaten the rights and resources of the 
     beneficiaries that OHA exists to serve. Until and unless 
     Judge Kavanaugh is able to correct the aforementioned 
     misunderstandings and misconceptions, should a case involving 
     the rights or political status of Native Hawaiians come 
     before him, perhaps a recusal would be in order. Finally, OHA 
     wishes to bring to the Committee's attention concerns voiced 
     by American Indian and Alaska Native groups, who share our 
     concerns with Judge Kavanaugh's record on Native law.
           Sincerely,
                                               Colette Y. Machado,
     OHA Board of Trustees Chair.
                                  ____


                [From the Alaska Federation of Natives]

                   AFN Opposes Kavanaugh Appointment

       The Alaska Federation of Natives is the oldest and largest 
     Native organization in Alaska. Our membership includes 186 
     federally recognized Indian tribes, 177 for-profit village 
     corporations, 12 for-profit regional corporations, 12 not-
     for-profit regional organizations, and a number of tribal 
     consortia that compact and contract to run federal and state 
     programs. For over 50 years, AFN has been the principal forum 
     and voice for Alaska Natives in addressing critical issues of 
     law and policy, including the nomination of U S. Supreme 
     Court justices.
       The federal judicial appointment and confirmation process 
     is designed to thoroughly vet nominees. As such, we did not 
     immediately weigh in on President Trump's choice to replace 
     retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. However, the questions and 
     colloquies that came out of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Senate 
     Judiciary hearings last week has necessitated us taking a 
     position. AFN joins our colleagues and friends across Indian 
     country in strongly opposing Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme 
     Court because of, among other things, his views on the rights 
     of Native peoples.
       Judge Kavanaugh's Position on the Indian Commerce Clause is 
     Erroneous. Congress' plenary power over Indian affairs is 
     grounded in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 
     clause gives the Congress the power to ``regulate commerce 
     with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with 
     the Indian tribes.'' Judge Kavanaugh concedes this point. 
     However, like Justice Clarence Thomas--the most senior 
     justice on the Supreme Court, he challenges the clause's 
     application to affairs beyond trade. This impacts Alaska 
     Native tribes, corporations, organizations and consortia 
     because their dealings with Congress presently extends to a 
     host of federal programs concerning their members, resources 
     and governments.
       In the 2013 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl decision, Justice 
     Thomas contested Congress' authority to enact the Indian 
     Child Welfare Act, reasoning the Indian Commerce Clause only 
     provides federal authority over Indian trade. Because most 
     federal laws concerning Indians lack a nexus to Justice 
     Thomas's narrow definition of trade, they would unlikely 
     survive the scrutiny he urges. The result would be a 
     wholesale reshaping of the body of law and policy that has 
     governed Indian affairs for the past century and a half.
       Legal observers tracking Judge Kavanaugh believe he is 
     further to the right than Chief Justice John Roberts. Thus, 
     he may agree with Justice Thomas that Congress only has 
     plenary power to regulate direct commerce with Indian tribes, 
     nothing more. Confirming a nominee with this viewpoint would 
     be disastrous for Alaska, and would roll back the gains of 
     self-determination and usher back in the losses of 
     termination.
       Judge Kavanaugh's View of the Special Trust Responsibility 
     is Misguided. The federal government has a special trust 
     relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes. The 
     relationship commands the highest moral and legal 
     obligations, and is rooted in early federal-tribal treaties, 
     the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and opinions of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh's writings demonstrate a 
     limited view of the federal government's power to deal with 
     Native peoples under this relationship. Specifically, he 
     would only extend the special trust relationship to Indian 
     tribes that have with his preferred history of federal 
     dealings, including territorial removal and isolation. This, 
     too, impacts Alaska since Alaska Native have a unique federal 
     experience and few reservations were established.
       During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge 
     Cavanaugh questioned the legitimacy of Native Hawaiian 
     recognition, citing their different treatment by the federal 
     government, and the fact that they do not live on 
     reservations or enclaves. If he remains of the view that the 
     special trust relationship only extends to Indian tribes with 
     his brand of federal history, including territorial removal 
     and isolation, he could very well rule that Congress lacks 
     the authority to deal with Alaska Natives. This thinking 
     could overturn much, if not all, of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act, as well as all other federal legislation and 
     regulations addressing Alaska Natives, tribes, corporations 
     and organizations. To confirm a nominee who does not 
     understand or appreciate the position of Native Hawaiians, 
     and who could weaken the special trust relationship Alaska 
     Natives share with the federal government, would be 
     imprudent.
       Judge Kavanaugh's Assessment of the Political 
     Classification Doctrine is Troubling. The political 
     classification doctrine announced in the 1974 Morton v. 
     Mancari decision, that focusses on and Indian person's 
     membership in a federally recognized tribe rather than his or 
     her ancestry to avoid strict scrutiny review of federal 
     legislation and regulation that benefits Indians, would be 
     extremely vulnerable if Judge Kavanaugh were to ascend to the 
     Court. For the reasons outlined above, he would likely align 
     himself with Justice Thomas on the issue, and the two of them 
     would likely work to persuade their fellow justices that the 
     relationship between an Indian person's status politically 
     and their race is open for interpretation. Judge Kavanaugh 
     does not accept this well-

[[Page S6371]]

     established legal doctrine. Confirming a nominee who is 
     unable to grasp the necessity of federal programs based on 
     the political classification doctrine, and articulate why 
     they must be protected, would be unwise.
       AFN strongly urges the U.S. Senate to vote against Judge 
     Kavanaugh. The documents that have been released so far in 
     relation to his nomination demonstrate how troubling his 
     confirmation would be for Native peoples, particularly Alaska 
     Natives and Native Hawaiians.

  Ms. HIRONO. It is deeply troubling to have a Supreme Court nominee 
for a lifetime position who isn't candid with us about the facts or 
straight with us about the law.
  In Garza v. Hargan, he did it again. In that 2017 case, he wrote a 
dissent in which he misapplied the law and treated the case as if it 
were about parental consent. It was not. The case, which was about 
whether a 17-year-old undocumented young woman could be released from 
immigration custody to have an abortion, did not involve the question 
of parental consent. But he sat there at his nomination hearing, and 
when I asked him about it, he said that was a case involving parental 
consent--a total misstatement of the issue in the case. In that case, 
this young woman had already received a proper judicial bypass from a 
Texas judge that allowed her to make her own decisions. So that had 
nothing to do with having to require parental consent; she had already 
overcome that. But that wasn't good enough for Judge Kavanaugh. He 
inserted his own views about legal issues not even present in the case. 
This is just one example of his outcome-driven approach to important 
cases before him.
  At the hearing, I also asked him about the pattern that was revealed 
in his numerous dissents. In several of those cases, his own colleagues 
called him out for misrepresenting the facts and the law. Just last 
year, in United States v. Anthem, the majority said that Judge 
Kavanaugh ``applies the law as he wishes it were, not as it currently 
is.'' In a 2008 case, Agri Processor v. NLRB, the majority wrote that 
Judge Kavanaugh's dissent ``creates its own rule.'' Instead of 
following Supreme Court rules, they said that Judge Kavanaugh's dissent 
abandons the text of the applicable law altogether. It is pretty 
telling when your own colleagues on the court feel so strongly about 
your dissent that they will actually call you out on it.
  When this nomination first came to the Senate, I was skeptical. I 
said that if the President's nominee to the Supreme Court is anything 
like the nominees he has been sending to the lower Federal courts, I 
expect we will see a nominee handpicked by the Federalist Society and 
the Heritage Foundation intent on carrying out their rightwing ideology 
supported by the President. It turned out to be much worse than I 
imagined. Not only was the nominee someone who fit that description; it 
became clear that he was someone who lacked candor, credibility, and 
character. This has been displayed at every turn.
  After hearing from Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh yesterday, the 
editors of America Magazine--a well-respected Jesuit weekly--withdrew. 
They originally endorsed Judge Kavanaugh. This group withdrew their 
endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh. They said:

       While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge 
     Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his 
     reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that 
     the nomination should be withdrawn.
       If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they 
     will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an 
     assault.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of a copy of 
this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From America Magazine, Sept. 27, 2018]

  The Editors: It Is Time for the Kavanaugh Nomination To Be Withdrawn

                            (By The Editors)

       Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the 
     seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. 
     Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole 
     country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized 
     in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators 
     to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack 
     him was established long before Dr. Blasey's allegation was 
     known.
       Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a 
     question about which people of good will can and do disagree. 
     The editors of this review have no special insight into who 
     is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey's allegation is true, the 
     assault and Judge Kavanaugh's denial of it mean that he 
     should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if 
     the credibility of the allegation has not been established 
     beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation 
     is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge 
     Kavanaugh's name, we recognize that this nomination is no 
     longer in the best interests of the country. While we 
     previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the 
     basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a 
     committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination 
     should be withdrawn.

  Ms. HIRONO. In addition, Robert Carlson, president of the American 
Bar Association, the ABA, issued a letter urging the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate to not vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination 
until there is an FBI investigation into Dr. Ford's account of sexual 
assault. The ABA explained that ``deciding to proceed without 
conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting 
impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect 
the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the 
Supreme Court.''
  I agree. Brett Kavanaugh does not have the credibility, candor, 
character, or, I would say, as we saw yesterday, the temperament to be 
on the Supreme Court. His presence on the Court under this kind of 
cloud will weaken the Court. I cannot support this nomination.
  I would like to end the remarks I would have given at the markup but 
am giving on the floor now. I would like to say that my colleague 
Senator Jeff Flake has said that he would not be able to vote on the 
confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh without an FBI investigation into the 
current allegations. I support that. I have no idea whether the 
Republican leadership is going to allow a timeout for that kind of 
investigation to occur--an investigation that I and other Democratic 
members of the Judiciary Committee have been calling for, for what 
seems like months.
  Of course, I would want an FBI investigation to be thorough. I do not 
want some kind of a peripheral investigation to give cover to Senators 
who are wavering. I would want an investigation by the FBI to be 
thorough, to be real, to provide us with the kind of information that 
we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, and 
character of Judge Kavanaugh.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, the Judiciary Committee had an 
extraordinary meeting this morning, and each of us spoke at some length 
about our reservations or support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh 
to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. At the end of that meeting, as we 
were about to take a vote, Senator Jeff Flake, our colleague, announced 
his decision that he would request and seek a 1-week extension of the 
vote so there could be an FBI investigation of some of the unanswered 
questions that still very seriously and urgently demand responses in 
fact and evidence.
  That is a very promising and important step. It has to be a real 
investigation, not a sham or show. It has to be penetrating and 
impartial, which the trained professionals of the FBI can do.
  I have a lot of confidence that the FBI will do its job and answer 
those very serious and urgent questions.
  The answers are all the more pressing after the extraordinary hearing 
we held yesterday at the Judiciary Committee. The entire Nation watched 
as two people told their stories; two very, very different stories and 
also told in very, very different ways, but let's be very clear. The 
roles of these individuals and their responsibilities were also very 
different.
  Judge Brett Kavanaugh came before us for a job interview. He has no 
right to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a privilege of 
extraordinary magnitude and significance. The position is one of the 
most important in our country--a lifetime appointment to the highest 
Court in the land.
  Our responsibility in the Judiciary Committee is not to approve just 
anyone for that job. We should be seeking the best person, a person of 
intellect and integrity and temperament who will be fair and impartial, 
objective, and considerate.

[[Page S6372]]

  I concluded well before the hearing yesterday--it is no secret--that 
I would oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.
  My opposition was based on his extreme ideological views and judicial 
philosophy which were amply demonstrated at the previous hearing we had 
with him. My concern is, he would be a fifth vote to cut back or even 
overturn Roe v. Wade and stop women from making decisions about when 
they will become pregnant or have children; stop people from marrying 
and exercising their right to do so with the person they love; cutting 
back on consumer rights and workers' rights and environmental 
objectives; and permitting an imperial Presidency--a President who 
could decide unilaterally that he believes the law is unconstitutional, 
and therefore it should not be enforced, meaning that laws protecting 
millions of Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions like 
diabetes and heart disease, cancer, mental illness, and, yes, pregnancy 
would go unprotected, and other rights under the Affordable Care Act. 
An imperial Presidency giving the power of that kind of unilateral 
authority is an anathema.
  What we saw yesterday went beyond views on substantive issues, and I 
will be very blunt. What we saw was a man filled with anger, even rage, 
and self-pity, someone of arrogance, highly intensely partisan, and 
someone, in my view, temperamentally unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court. 
In fact, I fear his rancor and animus, his partisan bitterness, which 
came across so clearly and explicitly in his reference to a leftwing 
conspiracy; Democrats organized to fight him and dredge dirt to destroy 
his family, a conspiratorial view of the world that is not only 
factually totally false but also deeply dangerous and unprecedented in 
anything we have ever heard from any nominee for any judicial position 
as long as I have been here and I believe unprecedented also in the 
Senate's consideration of Supreme Court nominees. He indicated a 
partisanship that was disrespectful and dangerous.
  We saw also a woman who came before us as a sexual assault survivor 
who was temperamentally almost exactly the opposite. Instead of 
hostile, she was helpful. Instead of angry, she was calm. Instead of 
rancorous and arrogant, she was modest and humble.
  Like Judge Kavanaugh, her family has been harmed by death threats and 
other vile, vicious behavior that has no tolerance in a democratic 
society, and my heart goes out to both families. We should reject 
threats to both of those families, as we do to anyone else in our 
society, and I have sympathy for the children and the families on both 
sides and others who may have been affected in coming forth with truth 
that relates to this nomination.
  The demeanor of Professor-Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was completely 
distinct and different. She was mesmerizing. Even now, her visage 
haunts me in her profound honesty. She was credible and powerful in 
recounting events that caused her untold terror and anguish; events she 
hid because of the trauma she experienced then and because of many of 
the fears that cause other survivors of sexual assault to hide the same 
kinds of assault, the fears of blame and public shaming and character 
assassination and threats of retaliation and sometimes self-blame or 
stigma or embarrassment.
  In her case, coming forward has made many of those fears a reality, 
tragically and unfortunately. She has endured the nightmare befallen 
her and her family simply to serve the public with facts and evidence 
she believes we should know--we in the Senate, we in America--should 
take into account before we make a decision on Brett Kavanaugh as the 
nominee.
  So there are profound questions raised by her powerful testimony that 
need to be answered in the FBI interview. That is the reason the 
American Bar Association Thursday evening called for postponing a vote 
on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court until sexual 
assault and misconduct allegations made by Dr. Blasey Ford and others 
are fully investigated and why separately the magazine of the Jesuit 
Order in the United States, America, withdrew its endorsement of Judge 
Kavanaugh. He was educated by Jesuits at Georgetown Preparatory School 
in Maryland, and on Thursday, the editors said the nomination was no 
longer in the best interest of the country.
  I want to quote further the magazine, which said:

       If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they 
     will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of 
     assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation 
     being firmly disproved, it would hang over future decisions 
     on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the 
     country.

  Approval of Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court would be a 
cloud, it would be a stain on the U.S. Supreme Court for generations to 
come. We do that damage to the Nation's highest Court at our peril 
whether we are in agreement or disagreement with Brett Kavanaugh on his 
policy aims, as the magazine said.
  We are talking about the fundamental integrity of an institution and 
our responsibility to uphold that integrity.
  In her testimony yesterday, she was convincing not only because of 
what she knew and recalled in such precise, vivid detail--indeed, 
highlighting the laughter of Brett Kavanaugh as he groped her and held 
her down, as he lay on top of her, the laughter from both him and from 
Mark Judge--but after we heard her compelling and powerful story, in 
Judge Kavanaugh, we heard several statements that clearly contradict 
the facts in evidence. They are untruths.
  He claimed the FBI had already investigated him because they did a 
background check six times. The FBI never investigated Dr. Blasey 
Ford's allegations. It never investigated Deborah Ramirez's 
allegations. It never investigated Julie Swetnick's allegations. In 
fact, the ABA highlights this point.
  Senator Grassley said that committee investigators were willing to 
talk to the witnesses about their allegations, but committee 
investigators are no substitute for the FBI. The FBI must send those 
trained professionals to talk to these brave survivors who have come 
forward, and it must talk to Mark Judge.
  I offered a motion to subpoena Mark Judge this morning before our 
committee. The motion was voted down.
  The FBI must talk to Mark Judge, who was allegedly in that room with 
Brett Kavanaugh when he assaulted Dr. Blasey Ford.
  We asked Judge Kavanaugh to call for an investigation by the FBI. A 
person who is innocent would want the FBI to investigate their claims 
and clear their name. That is what Dr. Blasey Ford wanted. She said so 
publicly.
  When Brett Kavanaugh was asked, he refused to make that same call. 
The question is, Why? What is he hiding? What is the administration 
concealing in refusing to disclose more than a million pages of 
documents that relate to Brett Kavanaugh's service in the Bush White 
House as Staff Secretary? They bear on his credibility, maybe not on 
these specific allegations, but on his credibility.
  Judge Kavanaugh claimed that polygraphs are not reliable; that the 
polygraph Dr. Blasey Ford took and passed was meaningless. Yet, on the 
DC Circuit as a judge, Brett Kavanaugh ruled otherwise. He wrote ``law 
enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of 
witnesses and criminal defendants.''
  As a former U.S. attorney, I know how polygraphs are used to test 
credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. They may sometimes be 
inadmissible. They may be inadmissible generally, but they have a use. 
Judge Kavanaugh claimed that all four witnesses Dr. Ford identified as 
being present at the party have said that the sexual assault ``didn't 
happen,'' but in fact, only one person has said the sexual assault 
didn't happen. That one person is Brett Kavanaugh. The other three 
parties identified by Dr. Blasey Ford said they do not remember. There 
is a big difference between ``do not remember'' and ``it didn't 
happen.''

  The other woman Dr. Blasey Ford named who was there has since 
publicly stated that she believes Dr. Ford's account. She believes Dr. 
Ford, and I do too. Judge Kavanaugh tried to give himself an alibi by 
making it sound like he never drank on weeknights. His own high school 
calendar, which he provided the committee as evidence, disputes that 
statement.
  During the hearing, he admitted that one of the entries on his 
calendar from

[[Page S6373]]

a Thursday signified that he went to a friend's house to drink.
  Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly said that he had never in his life had so 
much to drink that he couldn't remember everything that happened, but 
numerous people who spent time with him during his high school, 
college, and law school years confirmed that he frequently drank to 
excess and sometimes became belligerent.
  Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he always treated women ``with dignity 
and respect''--his words--and yet he and his football friends from high 
school named one of my constituents, Renate Dolphin, in their yearbook 
pages, saying they were her ``alumnius,'' in effect, boasting of sexual 
conquests and objectifying her, demeaning her. That is hardly treating 
a woman with dignity and respect. Judge Kavanaugh said this reference 
meant nothing sexual, but Renate Dolphin disagrees. In a quote to the 
New York Times, she said:

       The insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue. I 
     pray their daughters are never treated that way.

  He said the allegations against him were ``a calculated and 
orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about 
President Trump and the 2016 election.'' He called it ``revenge on 
behalf of the Clintons.'' He issued a warning--more like a threat--that 
``what goes around comes around.'' That threat to the Judiciary 
Committee of the U.S. Senate is a threat to America. It is profoundly 
and deeply dangerous to think that litigants will come before his court 
with the threat that their political views will determine how he 
decides their cases. That is antithetical to the basic fundamental 
principles of this country. It contravenes the entire concept of an 
independent judiciary. President Trump has demonstrated his contempt 
for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, but a member of one 
of the highest courts in the country doing so is chilling. It is 
stunning. It is staggering.
  My Republican colleagues, unfortunately, followed that example. They 
said we leaked her letters to the press at the last minute to derail 
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. They called the allegation against Judge 
Kavanaugh a coordinated smear campaign. That contention is false. It 
implies that these courageous survivors of sexual assault are puppets 
or pawns orchestrated by politicians. Anybody who heard and saw Dr. 
Blasey Ford yesterday knows that is blatantly false. She came forward 
on her own initiative. She did it reluctantly, foreseeing the nightmare 
that would befall her and her family. She did it without encouragement 
from any Member of the U.S. Senate or any other political figure. That 
contention is an insult to her and all survivors of this horrific 
crime. Is Deborah Ramirez's story, too, a fabricated allegation to take 
down Judge Kavanaugh?
  When Senator Harris asked Judge Kavanaugh if he had listened to Dr. 
Ford's testimony, he said: ``I did not.'' He should have. He should 
have listened to her testimony. He should have heard and heeded what 
Deborah Ramirez said about his sexual misconduct toward her and, 
likewise, Julie Swetnick, about the chilling acts that she alleged that 
he was involved in performing.
  Judge Kavanaugh and my Republican colleagues say they don't dispute 
that Dr. Blasey Ford may have been sexually assaulted at some point but 
by some other person, just not Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe she was mixed up. 
Maybe she was confused. Those kinds of words used to describe her and 
other sexual assault victims demonstrate the disrespect and disregard 
that has shamed and silenced so many sexual assault survivors from 
coming forward to tell their truth, seek prosecution, and consult their 
parents or loved ones and seek healing. It is the reason that sexual 
assault is one of the most underreported crimes in our country. One out 
of every three women is a survivor, but so very few come forward 
because of the public shaming, character assassination, and threats and 
rejections they fear and, in fact, they rightly foresee.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle, you cannot have it both 
ways. You either believe Dr. Blasey Ford or you reject her testimony. 
Either you accept her veracity or you don't. Dr. Blasey Ford was asked 
whether it was possible that she confused her attacker, whether there 
was mistaken identity, or whether there was maybe someone else other 
than Brett Kavanaugh. Firmly, unequivocally, repeatedly, she said no. 
Before us and the entire country, she said she was ``100 percent'' sure 
that Brett Kavanaugh was her attacker.

  This detail is seared in her memory. There is no mistaken identity 
here. A person so brutally attacked at the age of 15 who admits to 
these details and also the details that she doesn't remember and 
insists on the details she does remember doesn't make something like 
that up out of whole cloth. She came forward at great personal 
sacrifice. I believe her. I think America believes her.
  She testified that she was terrified--that is her word, 
``terrified''--to come forward. She was very nearly silenced by her 
fear. She worried if she told her story that she would be shouted down 
or vilified by Judge Kavanaugh's defenders and that he would never be 
held accountable. That fear silences too many survivors. We must prove 
them wrong. We must hold him accountable.
  As I said at the very start, a lifetime appointment and promotion to 
the Supreme Court is not an entitlement. It is a privilege for the 
person who is best for that position.
  Last Friday, President Trump said about Dr. Blasey Ford's story on 
Twitter:

       I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad 
     as she says, charges would have been immediately filed by 
     local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving 
     parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so we can 
     learn the date, time, and place!

  President Trump knows better. I hope he knows better. Psychologists 
have noted, and it is widely known, that there are a number of reasons 
why survivors opt for silence, such as fear of retaliation and 
repercussions in the workplace or at home, feelings of self-blame. They 
are told to dismiss it. They are told by their parents they will be 
blamed, not the perpetrators. They fear they will not be believed, and 
they want to forget. They want to put this trauma somewhere deep and 
dark where it will be a source of less pain.
  So Dr. Ford did not share the details of her abuse until a therapy 
session in 2012. She told her husband early in their relationship, but 
even he did not know the details of this incident until that therapy 
session.
  That is not uncommon for people who have experienced trauma. In the 
last few weeks, numerous survivors of sexual assault have stepped 
forward with their stories to explain why they hid their own trauma. I 
want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the 
survivors who are coming forward now with stories of terrible crimes, 
of impulses to stay silent, and of fears that they have conquered in 
coming forward.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these stories be 
printed in the Record.
  I will not read them all now, but I wish for the statements of 
Lindsey Jones of Connecticut; Tara, who asked that her last name not be 
used, also of Connecticut; and survivors from other parts of the 
country who have contacted me just over the past few days be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Lindsey Jones From Connecticut

       Pain, sadness, shame, self-doubt, loyalty, guilt, fear. 
     These are some of the reasons I decided not to file a police 
     report when I was assaulted at a house party in my teens.
       The main reason, however, was that as a teenage girl I had 
     spent my life in a culture that told me I was the least 
     important character in the story of my life. My pain, my 
     truth, my future were all less important than the futures and 
     reputations of the people who assaulted me.
       I believed that I must bear at least some of the 
     responsibility for the assault because I had been drinking 
     underage.
       And a brief visit to the victim services office of my 
     college only confirmed that belief. I believed that the 
     symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress following 
     the assault was my own personal failings.
       I told myself I was being dramatic, that my inability to 
     just get on with things shouldn't negatively impact the 
     futures of my formers friends.
       I even, in a desperate attempt to convince myself that 
     nothing truly terrible had happened, apologized for 
     inconveniencing them and privately accusing them of assault.
       You see, I could deal with what happened to me if I was at 
     fault. If it was my fault, I

[[Page S6374]]

     could change my behavior to make sure it never happened 
     again.
       If I stayed silent, I could pretend everything was fine and 
     deal with my emotions in private. If I was silent, people 
     wouldn't look at me and see either a victim or a liar.
       No one would have to choose sides, everyone I knew would be 
     spared of what side to take, my side, or the side of my 
     rapist.
       If I stayed silent and accepted all the blame, I spared 
     myself the additional trauma of watching friends and loved 
     ones choose the sides of the person who assaulted me.
       Most importantly, if I convinced myself that nothing 
     illegal had taken place, that it was more of a 
     misunderstanding than an assault, if I convinced myself that 
     it didn't matter anyway, that I didn't really care, then I 
     wouldn't have to face my biggest fear--that no one else would 
     really care, that I didn't really matter.
       I was convinced that I could find safety in my silence, but 
     to paraphrase the poet and activist Audre Lorde, my silence 
     did not protect me.
       It's been 15 years, and I'm still in pain. And the people 
     who assaulted me have not faced a single consequence.
       And meanwhile, especially over the last two years, I 
     continued to find evidence that my teenage self was right--no 
     one cares about the victims of sexual assault.
       No one seems to care to the point that in 2018, men who 
     have been credibly accused of sexual assault are leading this 
     nation and their accusers are publicly doubted and verbally 
     eviscerated by the media, the president, and members of the 
     senate judiciary committee.
       I am here today because I want all the unheard teenagers 
     girls in this country, past, present, and future, including 
     my two daughters, one of whom is here with me today, every 
     time you speak the truth, you do your part to dismantle a 
     toxic, victim-blaming culture, and the world is better for 
     it. Make them hear you. Thank you Senator Blumenthal, and 
     thank you Dr. Blasey Ford.

                         Tara From Connecticut

       Between the ages of 13 and 14, I was raped by a man whose 
     children I used to babysit for.
       He used the fact that I loved his children and wanted them 
     in my life against me as he raped me while the children were 
     around us.
       I didn't tell--I thought that if I got out of the situation 
     that it would be okay because it was my fault--especially 
     after the first time.
       I didn't tell, like he said, nobody would believe me.
       They would think that I wanted it.
       So I continued on and didn't tell till I got a phone call 
     that he had possibly raped the babysitter after me.
       And that was the only thing that got me to come forward and 
     speak up.
       I had already not been in the children's life and I needed 
     to stop him from doing it again.
       And so we went through and I pressed charges and he ended 
     up getting five years.
       And he got out of prison and there were no safeguards to 
     protect anybody and he is back on the streets and I don't 
     know today if I would have spoken up back then until 
     recently.
       If I hadn't gotten that phone call, this may still be a 
     secret I keep.
       And, you know, because of the more people coming forward--
     Dr. Ford, we believe you. We all need to stick together and 
     do what's right because 1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 6 
     boys--it's in everybody's family.
       And I just ask the Senators to think about if it was your 
     mother or your sister or your daughter, what would you want 
     for them?
       And nobody who is falsely accusing somebody would ask for 
     an FBI investigation--in my opinion.
       I just--I really think we all need to stick together and 
     demand what she deserves.

                    Emily Malloy From North Carolina

       I remember what I was wearing like it was yesterday.
       Like a broken record on repeat.
       I'll never forget that outfit and what happened to me in 
     those clothes that unforgettable night.
       Blue jeans and a bright blue t-shirt. Nothing revealing. 
     Nothing slutty. Just regular clothes you wear to a high 
     school football game.
       It was senior year. I was with one of my high school 
     friends and we had just gotten invited to a after game party.
       I wish I would have listened to my gut that night, but I 
     ignored that voice in my head like the plague.
       I was pressured into going to this party by my friend and I 
     was staying at her house that night . . . little did I know 
     I'd never get to her house. There we were.
       Beer and loud rap music. I was surrounded by people I knew.
       Yes I drank. Yes I got drunk. What happened later that 
     night ISN'T my fault and it took me 11 years so believe that.
       Three guys I knew. Three guys I trusted. Three guys lured 
     me into a dark room. One of those guys took my innocence 
     without my consent that night on the cold floor.
       I froze. I panicked. I gave in and just let it happened.
       What I was left with in the wee hours of the morning, was 
     bruises and a tattered spirit that I'm still healing to this 
     day.
       I'm now 31.
       I finally told my mom this past fall. I remember mom saying 
     ``I wish you would have told me we could have prosecuted 
     those guys.''
       I just hugged her and cried . . . I knew that my chances of 
     justices were slim to none.

                       Anonymous from New Jersey

       A decorative emerald green bird in a nest, embellished with 
     gold glitter
       An orange shag carpet and a plaid bedspread
       An ugly brown wallpaper with golden swirls
       A rough wood wall in a darkened hallway between two office 
     buildings
       Look at this list. See any connections? I'm guessing that 
     most wouldn't--even an experienced HGTV designer would have 
     difficulty coordinating them or even using them as 
     inspiration for a room makeover.
       But I can connect them without hesitation: they're all 
     objects--things I remember--from the times I was violated, 
     molested, or fought through attempted sexual assaults. They 
     are objects from four specific points in time:
       A night when I was 6
       An afternoon when I was 12
       A night when I was newly-16
       An afternoon when I was 16
       It's bizarre--even to me--to see this list of things 
     together. I've never written it before. I've never spoken 
     openly about the incidents before. But I remember them, each 
     of them. The incidents and the objects. Some violations play 
     like movies in my head from time to time, even 40+ years 
     later. Certain objects, smells, hairdos, and foods can bring 
     a flood of memories--of the teen boys and grown men who 
     attacked me. And each time it happens, it's like a punch to 
     the gut. Still. Decades later.
       When that happens, I want to hold the 6-year-old me and 
     tell her that the pedophile teen was a crafty opportunist 
     that night--and it was not her fault. I didn't report it 
     because I didn't have the words.
       I want to comfort the 12-year-old me and tell her that the 
     17-year-old who physically manifested his interest in her 
     prepubescent body should have been nowhere near her--and it 
     was not her fault.
       I didn't report it because I was told by him that it would 
     ruin his life.
       I want to tell the newly-16-year-old me that the drunken 
     upperclassman who followed her into the bathroom at a party 
     to was an insecure, aggressive guy who was incapable of 
     handling rejection--and it was not her fault.
       I didn't report it because I had been drinking and didn't 
     want to get in trouble.
       I want to tell the 16-year-old me that the 40-something-
     year-old man who pinned her against the wall, shoved his 
     tongue down her throat, and groped her was a sick 
     individual--and it was not her fault.
       I didn't report it because I was told by the adult I 
     confided in that the man would go to jail; and since he was a 
     husband and a father of young children, it would ruin his 
     life. This is the first time I've written it all out--the 
     things that happened and why I didn't report them. And I know 
     there are millions of unwritten stories and unspoken memories 
     just like mine--from all over the world.
       We haven't been heard, but we exist. And since the #metoo 
     movement we've realized that we're not alone. We're not 
     voiceless. We're not powerless. We're finally learning to say 
     ``me too.''

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, let me conclude with this thought. 
Dr. Blasey Ford is a profile in courage. Her name will be remembered 
long after many of ours are forgotten. She will be in the history books 
as a teacher--she is a teacher by profession--for this teaching moment 
for America. It is a teaching moment for all of us--for women who need 
perhaps that inspiration and role model to come forward and to know 
that they will be embraced, not rejected. They will be believed, not 
shunned. They will be bolstered and heeded, and their perpetrator will 
be held accountable. It is a teaching moment for men--all of us--that 
we need to do better. It is also a teaching moment for young men--high 
school juniors and seniors, like Brett Kavanaugh was. When he put into 
his yearbook that hurtful, horrible phrase about Renate Dolphin--in 
effect, laughing at her and ridiculing that young woman, just as he 
laughed and ridiculed Dr. Blasey Ford, then 15 years old, as he 
allegedly was on top of her, groping and trying to undress her--that 
laughter was the detail that continued to ring in the ears of Dr. 
Blasey Ford. It was the most identifiable fact about that incident, as 
she said yesterday: That laughter is what I hear when I see that entry 
in the yearbook.

  So to all of us men and women in America, her profile in courage 
should send a message. We should be proud of her, and no one should be 
prouder than her two sons. I say to Dr. Blasey Ford's sons, as I did 
this morning in the Judiciary Committee meeting: You should be proud of 
your mom. She is an American woman who stood strong and spoke out and 
fearlessly and relentlessly insisted on America hearing her story--
well, maybe not fearlessly. She had fear, but she conquered it. That is 
the definition of courage--not to be without fear but to act 
courageously in

[[Page S6375]]

spite of it. Grace under pressure--that is Christine Blasey Ford.
  I expressed my gratitude that I think is shared by many in America 
for that great teaching moment yesterday. We should honor her by acting 
in a way that keeps faith with her honesty and bravery.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________