[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 165 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6509-S6533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is another morning in the Senate and 
another partisan diatribe coming from my good friend--and he is my good 
friend--the majority leader. Instead of looking at what happened--that 
a young woman came forward because she felt compelled to, knowing she 
would risk so much to herself, which, unfortunately, has happened--he 
seeks to blame somebody else; in this case, the Democrats.
  Let's remember that Dr. Ford came forward before Judge Kavanaugh was 
even nominated. Dr. Ford came forward and called up two people before 
anyone even knew of her allegations, including, one, a hotline from the 
Washington Post, according to her testimony. Our colleague--my 
colleague here--has engaged in a giant Kabuki game. He knows how 
believable Dr. Ford is. He knows the majority of the American people 
believe Dr. Ford was telling the truth rather than Judge Kavanaugh. He 
knows any focus on Dr. Ford would bring more feelings that Judge 
Kavanaugh is the wrong person for the Supreme Court, but he can't 
attack Dr. Ford because of her credibility--greater than Judge 
Kavanaugh's--so he attacks ``Democrats,'' increasing the partisan 
rancor and basically the fundamental lack of getting to the truth in 
this Chamber.
  I would like to ask the majority leader a few questions based on what 
he said a few minutes ago. He said this debate has been filled with 
partisan histrionics. Mr. Leader, are you accusing Dr. Ford of engaging 
in partisan histrionics when she came forward?
  He said the politics of personal destruction is rampant. Again, Mr. 
Leader, are you accusing Dr. Ford of engaging in the politics of 
personal destruction?
  He talked about people being intimidated. Again, Mr. Leader, are you 
accusing Dr. Ford of intimidating the Senate because she had the 
courage to come forward?
  He talks over and over about the outrageous smear. Mr. Leader, it is 
about time you came forward and came clean. When you say ``outrageous 
smear,'' you are really referring to what Dr. Ford said, but you can't 
say so because everyone knows that kind of rhetoric would be 
outrageous.
  It is her testimony that got this whole thing going; her testimony, 
required by one courageous Republican who said he wouldn't just rush 
things through, as Leader McConnell attempted to do, and that is why 
there was a hearing, not any Democrats--none.
  I said yesterday, the leader is telling one of the greatest mistruths 
I have heard on the floor; that Democrats have delayed. Again, Mr. 
Leader, what power do we have to delay? Isn't it true that you set the 
time and place of hearings--or your committee chairs do--and you set 
the time and place of when we vote, with no effect from the Democrats, 
no influence by Democrats. If you have delayed, Mr. Leader, it is 
because you have delayed. If there has been delay, Mr. Leader, it is 
because you have delayed.
  Ultimately, Dr. Ford came forward and won America's heart, and our 
Republican colleagues were upset because that might derail their 
headlong rush to put Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Led by Judge 
Kavanaugh at his return testimony and by President Trump and by Leader 
McConnell, they have tried to misdirect the whole issue away from Dr. 
Ford, who is the cause--the reason--we are debating all of this, and 
toward other boogeymen, many of whom happen to be Democrats, 
coincidentally. It is wrong.
  What our Republican friends are doing--what my dear friend, the 
leader, is doing--is demeaning to Dr. Ford, and demeaning is the last 
thing Dr. Ford and others who have gone through what she went through 
needs now or deserves now.
  So I would say to the leader, if you are talking about partisan 
histrionics, if you are talking about politics of personal destruction, 
if you are talking about being intimidated, if you are talking about 
outrageous smears, you are really accusing Dr. Ford of all of those 
things, not anyone else, because she is the reason we are all here in 
this type of discussion, and no Democrat importuned her to come--no 
Democrat.
  Senator Feinstein tried to respect her wishes and not make it public. 
That was not a political instinct, that was a human instinct. As I 
understand it, Senator Feinstein's staff called each week and said: Do 
you want to go public now? And Dr. Ford said no, and Dianne Feinstein 
respected that. Now, because she did that, our Republican friends are 
accusing her of manipulating. Manipulating what? Dr. Ford's desire to 
keep this private?
  We heard what Dr. Ford said. She wrestled with deciding whether to go 
public. She knew the damage it would create for her family, for her 
life--her very life. She decided she had an obligation to come forward. 
She decided she had to come forward. I believe her. A large number of 
Americans believe her, but even if you don't believe her and you choose 
to believe Judge Kavanaugh, don't demean Dr. Ford, which is exactly 
what you are doing.
  It is a shame. It is a low point in a headlong rush to get somebody 
whose views are out of touch with the American people, who would, in 
all likelihood, greatly limit women's healthcare and women's right to 
choose, who would gravely constrain healthcare, who would allow this 
overreaching President to overreach with no constraint.
  Dr. Ford seems to be a casualty along the way in terms of the name-
calling, the nastiness, and the viciousness. Now, they don't say it is 
Dr. Ford, but make no mistake about it, it is her they are talking 
about because it was only she who brought all of these things up--not 
Democrats. Democrats didn't put words in her mouth. Her words came from 
the heart.
  Now, I will make three final points about the documents that were 
released late last night. First, we Democrats had many fears this would 
be an all-too-limited process that would constrain the FBI from getting 
the facts. Having received a thorough briefing a few minutes ago, our 
fears have been realized. Our fears have been realized.
  This is not a thorough investigation. According to Dr. Ford's lawyers 
and Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, there were many, many witnesses they wished 
to have interviewed, and they said they were not interviewed. They 
should be. Why not? What limits were placed on the FBI so that they 
couldn't do a full and thorough investigation? The word is, it was the 
White House, importuned by some of the Republican Senate staffers here.
  Well, the White House has two choices: They can admit it or, if they

[[Page S6510]]

deny it, they should at very minimum make the directive they sent to 
the FBI public. If the White House didn't limit what the FBI normally 
does when they do one of these background checks, it sure seems they 
did, given the limited number of witnesses or the so many witnesses who 
weren't called who should have been. Make it public. Let the American 
people see whether it was truly limited or not.
  What else should be made public are these documents that we are 
allowed to look at. First, again, the idea that this should be full and 
thorough and open and available is once again belied by the pettiness 
on the Republican side and the White House. There is only one document 
for 100 Members to see in the course of a day. That is very hard to do, 
and there were a lot of documents. There is only one copy of these 
documents. Why weren't there 10 copies in that room? What the heck is 
going on here? It is just a pattern--a pattern of limiting access to 
facts, limiting access to truth, and limiting access to what the 
American people ought to know.
  So I reiterate my call--particularly after receiving the briefing 
about what the documents contain--that they be made public. Obviously, 
there have to be appropriate redactions, and there should be, to 
protect the privacy of those who were interviewed. But there is no 
reason on God's green Earth that those documents can't be made public. 
Let the American people decide.
  Leader McConnell said from the very beginning to the effect that he 
was going to rush this through. Starting with not releasing documents, 
followed by constraints from our Senate Republican colleagues on what 
should be limitations on the FBI's ability to do the new background 
check, all the way to this morning with one document in that room, the 
White House and the Republican side here in the Senate have attempted 
to rush this through regardless of the facts. It is wrong. It jaundices 
relationships between the sides in this body--which we all want to be 
better--hurts the agencies involved, the reputation of the FBI, and, 
above all, this hurts the Supreme Court and the American people.
  Make no mistake about it. Once again, had this process been open and 
fair, maybe the outcome would be different; maybe it wouldn't. Who 
could tell? But at least there would be some respect for the process. 
That hasn't happened, and that is very bad for this body, for the 
Supreme Court, and for these United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it seems like light years ago, but it 
was July 9 when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be the 
next Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I want to recap 
to refresh everybody's memory of what has happened since July 9 and 
explain briefly why I will be voting for Judge Kavanaugh to be the next 
Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
  Most importantly, I want to make one point emphatically clear. The 
Senate should not be intimidated under the circus-like atmosphere that 
has unfortunately surrounded this entire confirmation process. We 
should not be intimidated, and we should not be complicit in the 
orchestrated attempt to assassinate one man's character and destroy his 
career and to further delay this confirmation vote.
  When Judge Kavanaugh was nominated, it quickly became clear that we 
were dealing with somebody who was well qualified and well respected. 
He served for 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He was well 
known for his expertise and his talent and his experience. Former 
colleagues and judges said that. Lawyers who argued before him at the 
DC Circuit Court said that. His former law clerks said that. Legal 
scholars, including those who did not share his views on the law, said 
that as well.
  What happened? I think opponents of this nomination knew they 
couldn't beat his nomination the old-fashioned way--on the merits--so 
they decided to throw in the kitchen sink. First came the trash 
talking. There are claims that supporters of Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination would somehow be complicit with evil. That was a U.S. 
Senator who said that. Another said his confirmation could spell the 
destruction of the Constitution itself.
  These are apocalyptic words and rhetoric. Most Americans can spot 
wild untruths and petty shaming when they see it. So that didn't work 
very well. Opponents had to move on to round 2.
  They then argued that Judge Kavanaugh could not be fair and impartial 
on the bench because of his views on executive power or because of his 
experience in working on the terrorist detention policy following the 
attacks that devastated this country on September 11, 2001, when he 
worked at the White House. Thankfully, the fact checkers did their due 
diligence and spotted errors with each of these arguments. So opponents 
of the nomination moved on.
  Next came the great paper chase--the insistence that more and more 
documents needed to be produced, including those that had traditionally 
been held back because of executive privilege, because these were not 
documents that Brett Kavanaugh owned. These were documents held by 
either the National Archives or the George W. Bush Library. Yet it is 
important to note that more documents about Judge Kavanaugh were 
produced for him than for all of the other past Supreme Court Justices 
combined--more paper on Judge Kavanaugh than all of the other Supreme 
Court Justices combined. Once again, that argument eventually ran out 
of gas.
  Fourth, came the normally scheduled confirmation hearings, which 
Judge Kavanaugh sailed through with flying colors. Opponents couldn't 
lay a finger on him, but that is when things began to take a darker 
turn. I am talking about the accusations that our Democratic colleagues 
sat on for a month before seeing them leaked into the press, contrary 
to Dr. Ford's wishes and against her consent. These allegations, of 
course, regarded alleged high school misconduct on the part of Judge 
Kavanaugh, but the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee didn't 
share that with the FBI for 6 weeks or more and didn't share it with 
bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, who were 
responsible for supplementing the investigation of the FBI and the 
background investigation. The ranking member didn't share it with the 
committee itself during a closed-door session during which sensitive 
material would not be made public and where Dr. Ford's identity, 
consistent with her request, could have remained confidential, as well, 
while that allegation was investigated. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh 
himself was never told of the allegation until sometime after his 
initial hearing.

  Now, that includes when our friend and colleague, the senior Senator 
from California, met one-on-one with Brett Kavanaugh. Don't you think, 
if somebody had a question about an allegation being made against the 
nominee, that would be the perfect time to confront the nominee and 
say: I have this allegation. What do you have to say about it? But she 
said nothing.
  By that point, we know she had already spoken to Dr. Ford. We know 
she had already recommended partisan lawyers to represent her. We knew 
there had been arrangements by her lawyers to conduct a polygraph 
examination. This is all during the time when the senior Senator from 
California had assured Dr. Ford that her name would be kept out of the 
press and out of the public limelight.
  Once she was sent to these partisan lawyers, they were preparing for 
battle. They got a polygraph examination, plans were being made and 
hatched, but the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who sat on 
these allegations for 6 weeks, said nothing, including hiding the 
allegations from the very man whose name in the next few days would be 
tarnished when the full fury of our Democratic colleagues' wrath was 
unleashed.
  These accusations are very serious. They are crimes. Judge Kavanaugh 
has been accused of multiple crimes.
  I have said earlier that I wanted Dr. Ford to be treated the same way 
my own daughters or my wife or my mother would be treated in similar 
circumstances. That is the sort of respect

[[Page S6511]]

we owe any person making a serious allegation like this, but while we 
were doing everything we could to treat Dr. Ford with the dignity and 
respect she deserves, our Democratic colleagues did her a huge 
disservice, not only to her but any other woman across the country who 
believes they have been a victim of a sexual assault. I say that 
because of the way they handled Dr. Ford's accusations and hid them 
along the way.
  We know Dr. Ford requested confidentiality, but our Democratic 
colleagues deprived her of that against her will. Her letter alleging 
misconduct on the part of Judge Kavanaugh was leaked to the press along 
the way, which is the way this sort of character assassination begins--
anonymous reports to the press.
  We know Dr. Ford is struggling to come to grips with difficult 
moments in her past, but eventually she summoned the courage to share 
her story. What she didn't fully appreciate is, she was simultaneously 
being used and deployed as a political weapon, a last-minute timebomb 
that was designed to destroy one man's reputation and blow up the 
confirmation process once and for all.
  I would say to our colleagues across the aisle who claim to be acting 
in Dr. Ford's best interest: It sure doesn't look like it to me. We did 
everything we could, under the awful circumstances presented to us by 
our Democratic colleagues, to show respect for Dr. Ford and to 
accommodate her wishes for safety and privacy. The Judiciary Committee 
wanted to do what was best for her when it offered a bipartisan team of 
investigators to go to California and give her an opportunity to tell 
her story to them out of the limelight, with the TV cameras off, 
respectfully and privately.
  One of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this whole event, the 
very lawyers the ranking member sent her to, these partisan lawyers, 
apparently didn't even tell Dr. Ford this option was available to her. 
That is what Dr. Ford said at the hearing.
  We also brought in an experienced sexual assault investigator and 
lawyer from Arizona to help us elicit the facts of her claim. 
Throughout the hearing, we listened and tried to learn from what Dr. 
Ford was telling us. We took Dr. Ford's statements seriously.
  Then it was Judge Kavanaugh's turn. Some of our colleagues now feign 
concern about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial temperament because of the way 
he forcefully defended himself at the hearing where he had been accused 
of multiple crimes and accused of lying under oath.
  We know what Judge Kavanaugh's temperament is like on the bench 
because he spent 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That is 
why the American Bar Association gave him their very highest rating, 
not only for his experience but for his temperament as well. They 
interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who had knowledge of Judge 
Kavanaugh's expertise and his temperament, and they all said it was 
deserving of the highest rating the American Bar Association could 
give.
  I wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime we 
didn't commit and were forced into the public limelight to defend our 
good name and our honor and our reputation and to protect our family 
against the threats that were being made against them. I would be 
angry. I would do everything possible to push back against the false 
accusations, and that is what Judge Kavanaugh did. Along the way, he 
again offered his denial of any of the allegations of Dr. Ford under 
penalty of felony.
  So the question is, How do we decide? Because we are going to be 
voting starting tomorrow on this nomination. Isn't it somebody's word 
against another's? Don't we either have to believe everything that one 
says or another? Do we know whom to trust, whose word to accept, when 
allegations are made about something that allegedly happened 35 years 
ago with gaps in the story, inconsistencies?
  Well, I think the first thing we have to do is put these questions 
into the proper context, but here is the bottom line: This is not a 
case of he said, she said. It is a case of she said, they said. In 
other words, the allegations made by Dr. Ford are not confirmed or 
corroborated by any of the other people she said were present that day. 
One of those people she said was present was Leland Keyser, a female 
friend, one of her closest friends, who said not only does she not 
remember being involved in anything like this, she said she never even 
met Brett Kavanaugh.
  This is not about believing women or believing men. That is a false 
choice. It is not about having to choose between a man and a woman when 
it comes to allegations of sexual assault. It is not about being for 
the #MeToo movement or against it because who, after all, could be 
against it--women coming forward and telling their story when they 
believe they have been assaulted.
  No, what this is about is looking at the specific relevant evidence 
in this case in the proper framework. That evidence goes well beyond 
the impassioned and unequivocal denial by Judge Kavanaugh.
  In this case, as I said, there were three eyewitnesses Dr. Ford said 
could confirm her story, and all of them directly refuted her story.
  What is more, nothing like this ever came up in the context of six 
previous FBI background investigations conducted by the FBI during 
Judge Kavanaugh's long and very public career.
  We have been told the FBI, during the course of these now seven 
background investigations, including the supplemental background 
investigation, has talked to 150 witnesses about Judge Kavanaugh. Don't 
you think somebody, somewhere, sometime would corroborate what Dr. Ford 
said if there were such a person?
  We know these claims conflict with the accounts of many women who 
said they have known this nominee to behave honorably not only in high 
school and college toward them but the countless other women who have 
known and interacted with Judge Kavanaugh since. It just seems simply 
out of character for the Brett Kavanaugh we have come to know as a 
result of these hearings and these investigations.
  Finally, the timing of these allegations seem awfully calculated and 
unusual, even politically motivated, and compound that with the fact 
that our Democratic colleagues chose not to act on the opportunity to 
investigate them either through the Judiciary Committee staff or the 
FBI when it was much more appropriate to do so.
  Well, those are the facts I believe we should consider, and that is 
the evidence that suggested Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth.
  The counterarguments offered by our Democratic colleagues are not 
compelling, and I think deep down they realize it. That is why they 
keep changing their position, moving the goalpost, as you have heard. 
That is why they have finally resorted to talking about alleged ice-
throwing incidents in college. Man, that is disqualifying, they say, 
apparently, or let's look at his high school yearbook. I would 
stipulate that teenage boys--well, I was one once. We are not that 
smart when we are teenage boys, and the dumb things that people say and 
do, I think, as the judge said, are cringeworthy sometimes.
  Then we have seen conspiracy theories spun up involving his calendar 
from 1982. Now, I admit it is a little odd, I think, for anybody to 
have kept a daily calendar and still have it at age 53, but Judge 
Kavanaugh said that is what his dad did, and it was a combination 
calendar and diary. So it tells us some of what he was doing at the 
time we are concerned with.
  I would suggest this whole enterprise has gotten so far afield from a 
search for the truth and become just a relentless, unhinged attempt to 
defeat the nomination, and in the process, chew up and spit out the 
reputation of a good man.
  We know this play has been telegraphed. Our friends across the aisle 
made known their opposition would be equal parts merciless and 
relentless months ago when the minority leader said he was going to 
oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything he has--everything.
  Well, apparently ``everything'' includes last-minute, uncorroborated 
accusations made almost 40 years ago. ``Everything'' involves refusing 
to participate in the normal committee process, walking out of 
hearings, breaking the rules. It involves making loud, baiting 
statements designed to incite people. It includes seeing some of our 
colleagues get hangers sent to their offices, chasing Senators and 
their

[[Page S6512]]

spouses from restaurants or through airports, not to mention delays and 
obstructions at every step along the way.
  Here is what I really think needs to be understood: Our colleagues 
across the aisle claim to be looking out for the victim. They claim to 
be on the side of empathy, but there is nothing empathetic about the 
cruelty they have shown Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and their children. 
There is nothing empathetic about presuming that somebody is guilty 
without evidence, and there is nothing consistent about our colleagues 
who forget many of their standard refrains about our criminal justice 
system convicting too many people when the evidence is thin.
  Some commentators have called this our Atticus Finch moment, 
recalling the famous novel ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' by Harper Lee. We 
all remember that Atticus Finch was a lawyer who did not believe that a 
mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. He represented an unpopular 
person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because 
of his race and his race alone. We could learn from Atticus Finch now, 
during this time when there has been such a vicious and unrelenting 
attack on the integrity and good name of this nominee.
  What I find the most distressing is that our colleagues who have 
engaged in this relentless and vicious attack express no remorse over 
violating Dr. Ford's wishes regarding confidentiality. They make no act 
of contrition about thrusting her into the spotlight and using her for 
partisan purposes or for recommending partisan lawyers to shepherd her 
along and withholding information from the Judiciary Committee and the 
FBI for weeks on end.
  I have spent much of my career in elected office fighting to make 
sure that victims of sexual assault and domestic violence and human 
trafficking are never ignored, but at the same time, I will never 
apologize for 1 second for believing in the constitutional presumption 
of innocence and due process of law--one of the bedrock principles of 
our justice system, and that is because those principles are grounded 
in basic fairness and fair play. The spirit of that principle and the 
concept of due process applies to Judge Kavanaugh just as much as it 
does to any defendant taking a stand in any courtroom across this 
country. He has, in fact, been accused of a crime--multiple crimes.
  I believe we will remember last week's hearings for years to come, 
and I am sure history will ultimately judge all of us, but in the 
meantime, we need to act. We have had more than enough time to evaluate 
this nominee. The Senate must do its job, and we will not be 
intimidated. This is about the principles we stand up for and defend--
yes, sometimes even when it is unpopular.
  This vote that we will have beginning tomorrow is about upholding 
long-established constitutional principles and creating the right 
precedent, not establishing the wrong one. Can you imagine, if this 
orchestrated smear campaign and relentless effort to destroy this 
nominee is successful, what kind of precedent that would set in the 
future? Woe be to all of us and shame on all of us if we allow that to 
happen.
  This vote is about validating years of public service and decades of 
honorable conduct. It is not about forgetting everything that a person 
has done, all that he is, and all that he has worked for at the drop of 
a hat based on unproven allegations. It is not about shifting with the 
turbulent political whims. It is about what is just, and not just what 
is popular in some circles.
  The FBI has submitted its supplemental background investigation. 
Democrats and Republicans are in the process of being briefed on that. 
Having been briefed, I can tell you this: Nothing new. No witness can 
confirm any allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. As I said, Judge 
Kavanaugh has been investigated seven times now by the FBI through 
background investigations where they have talked to 150 witnesses.
  It is time to vote. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination starting with the cloture motion we will 
vote on tomorrow morning.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, by the time Dr. Ford was sharing her 
story last Thursday afternoon, I was heartbroken. Then, by the time 
Judge Kavanaugh was done speaking, just a few hours later, I was 
horrified.
  Dr. Ford spent her time talking about the laughter she still hears 
ringing in her ears from that night--the night that an older, stronger, 
drunker boy forced her to learn what it was like to feel helpless. Her 
voice quivered, but she herself never wavered, steadfast in the truth--
in the memory of those few moments that changed her life forever.
  Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile, spent his time interrupting and attacking 
the committee members, shouting over Senators and dressing them down--
appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would dare keep him from 
getting what he feels entitled to, as though he--or anyone--is entitled 
to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Time after time, he made brazenly political statements that should 
disqualify any candidate from serving as a Federal judge. Over and over 
again, he told what appeared to be blatant lies despite his being under 
oath. He seems to have lied about the meaning of his yearbook page, 
about when he learned of some of the recent accusations, about what he 
knew at age 53 and what he did at age 17.
  Sadly, this was hardly even surprising. Kavanaugh has a habit of 
appearing to lie under oath, as we know from when he was questioned 
about his role in the Bush administration's torture policy back in 
2006. This consistent dishonesty--this disregard, even distaste for the 
truth--should be unacceptable in any judicial nominee, let alone one 
nominated to serve on the highest Court of the land for a lifetime 
appointment.
  Let's be clear: How Republicans went about restricting the FBI 
investigation this past week was questionable at best, sabotage at 
worst. Yet the reality is that that suspiciously limited background 
check was not even necessary to prove that he was unfit; it was his 
inappropriate public outbursts and his lack of candor that were so 
deeply troubling, that should be so obviously disqualifying.
  This has nothing to do with his conservative beliefs. This has to do 
with the fact that the belligerent partisan operative who revealed 
himself last week is wholly unsuited for a job that demands a level-
headed temperament. It is not just I who is saying that. It is a 
sentiment that some of Kavanaugh's own former law clerks have expressed 
in the wake of his hostile outbursts.
  No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat, not even someone who went 
to Yale College or Law School as he reminded us one, two, three, four 
times last Thursday. In this #MeToo moment we are living through, we 
need to recognize the bravery it took for these women--Dr. Ford but 
also Deborah Ramirez--to speak out and not deride them and shame them 
as some on the other side of the aisle and even the President are 
doing.
  The other night, Trump stood in the middle of a political rally in 
Mississippi and told joke after joke about Dr. Ford and the worst 
moment of her life--mocking a survivor, making fun of her trauma, 
riling up thousands of people to laugh at her just as she says Brett 
Kavanaugh did in that bedroom that night. That makes me sick. It makes 
me furious. Donald Trump may sit in the Oval Office, but it is obvious 
he cannot live up to even the minimal standards of what we should 
expect of any President. He doesn't even understand or care how cruel 
it is to try to bully a survivor back into the shadows.
  You know, I have two daughters. The younger, Maile, was just born 
this April. The older, Abigail, is nearly 4 years old now. Her drawings 
line the walls of my Senate office, and her smile is the first thing I 
see in the morning. Well, I just can't stop thinking about how Dr. Ford 
was also once that age. She too probably had her hair brushed and then 
braided by her mom. She too probably loved that too-big set of Crayola 
crayons and proudly took to her mom drawing after drawing like those my 
Abigail brings to me. I can't stop thinking about how that little

[[Page S6513]]

girl, just a decade later, found herself cornered and alone and 
scared--outnumbered and overpowered and terrified--in hearing that 
boy's laughter that she remembers all of these years later.
  I am voting against Brett Kavanaugh because I believe Dr. Christine 
Blasey Ford, because I believe Deborah Ramirez, because we need a 
nominee who will not cover up, abet, and lie about torture, but also 
because I know the American people deserve a fair-minded Supreme Court 
Justice who actually cares about honesty and the truth. That is the 
bare minimum we should expect from a nominee to the Supreme Court, and 
Brett Kavanaugh can't even clear that low hurdle.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, nearly 3 months ago, I came to the Senate 
floor for the first time to support President Trump's nomination of 
Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is what I had to say at 
that time:

       Judge Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and most 
     influential judges in the entire country. The Supreme Court 
     has adopted the positions in his opinions no less than 11 
     times. He has authored multiple dissents that ultimately 
     prevailed in the Supreme Court.
       He has taught courses at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.
       It bears mention, liberal and conservative justices alike 
     have hired his former clerks, which shows the respect he has 
     across the ideological spectrum.
       Truly, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to 
     serve on the Supreme Court than Brett Kavanaugh.

  A lot has transpired in the last 3 months. We have received and 
reviewed more documents for Judge Kavanaugh than for any other Supreme 
Court nominee in our Nation's history. We have had 5 days of public 
hearings. Judge Kavanaugh has answered more than 1,300 written 
questions--more questions than all previous Supreme Court nominees 
combined.
  We have had protesters in halls and hearing rooms and elevators. We 
have even seen the miraculous return of Spartacus, and we have had the 
lowest, most vile, most dishonest attempt at character assassination I 
have ever seen in my whole 42 years of service in the Senate.
  We may never know who leaked reports of Dr. Ford's allegations to the 
press. We do know it was someone in the Democratic orbit. This was 
followed by the most appalling smear campaign imaginable. No accusation 
was too heinous, no claim too far-fetched.
  My Democratic colleagues like to pretend that Judge Kavanaugh's 
understandable indignation at last week's hearing was a reaction only 
to Dr. Ford's allegations but, of course, that is not the case. In the 
days immediately preceding that hearing, Judge Kavanaugh was accused of 
drugging women, of sexual assault, and even of gang rape.
  Judge Kavanaugh told the committee investigators it was like the 
twilight zone. I sure wish my Democratic colleagues would stop trying 
to rewrite history to excise the slew of garbage they unleashed on 
Judge Kavanaugh and the American people, and I hope they will start 
talking to their friends on the outside and start acting like Americans 
again and quit this kind of divisive activity.
  I would like to say a word here about Dr. Ford. It is clear now that 
we will never know what happened 36 years ago. Dr. Ford offered a 
moving account of what she says happened between her and Judge 
Kavanaugh back when they were teenagers. Judge Kavanaugh, in turn, 
offered a forceful, impassioned rebuttal of her claims. Some have 
criticized Judge Kavanaugh for being too forceful in his response. My 
gosh, if that were me, I would be even more forceful than he was, to 
have false accusations like that, especially at this particular time in 
this process.
  Interestingly, almost without exception, these critics had announced 
their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh even before Dr. Ford's allegations 
were leaked to the press. So let's not pretend these critics are 
neutral observers.
  In any event, Judge Kavanaugh's indignation at what he clearly 
believes are false and unjust accusations was both understandable and, 
in my view, entirely proper.
  Dr. Ford's allegations are serious. If true, they should disqualify 
Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. But neither Dr. Ford 
nor her attorneys nor any member of news media has been able to provide 
any corroboration for her claims. To the contrary, every alleged 
eyewitness or partygoer she has named has either denied her allegations 
or failed to corroborate them. This includes her lifelong friend Leland 
Keyser, whom Dr. Ford says was present at the party that night. Ms. 
Keyser says that not only does she not remember such a gathering ever 
taking place but that she does not even know Judge Kavanaugh.
  Questions have been raised in recent days about certain elements of 
Dr. Ford's testimony.
  She says she first told others that Judge Kavanaugh had attacked her 
around the time of a house remodel to add a second front door to her 
home, but permit records show that the door was added 4 years prior to 
her first alleged mention of Judge Kavanaugh.
  She testified that she had never given advice on how to take a 
polygraph test. A former boyfriend of hers, however, disputes that 
statement.
  Dr. Ford has also offered inconsistent accounts of when the attack 
took place and how many people were present at that party.
  There are other aspects of her story that are also confusing. She 
does not remember where or when the attack took place, but she 
remembers with crystal clarity how much alcohol she had consumed. This 
appears to be the only fact unrelated to the alleged attack that she is 
able to recall with certainty.
  Dr. Ford also testified that after the attack, she ran out of the 
party. The location of the party had to be some distance from her home. 
She was too young to drive, so she would have had to have gotten a ride 
home, but she does not recall who drove her home. And given that this 
was long before the era of cell phones, it is unclear how she would 
have contacted someone to come pick her up after she ran out of the 
party.
  Even more puzzling, her good friend, Ms. Keyser, apparently never 
asked Dr. Ford why she disappeared from the party.
  Given that there is no corroborating evidence for Dr. Ford's claims, 
all we have to go on is her story. Although not dispositive, the 
questions and inconsistencies and puzzling aspects that I have just 
outlined call into question the reliability of her account. This is 
simply not enough to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of the 
heinous act Dr. Ford alleges. It flies in the face of the life he has 
lived as a judge and how effective he has been as a judge on the second 
highest court in the land.
  Against the thinness of Dr. Ford's accusations, we have an entire 
lifetime of good works and honorable public service by Judge Kavanaugh. 
We have received dozens of letters and hundreds of people attesting to 
Judge Kavanaugh's good character and unimpeachable credentials. His 
clerks, students, and former colleagues have all praised him as a man 
of the highest integrity. He has made the promotion and encouragement 
of women lawyers a focus of his time on the bench. He volunteers in his 
community and mentors young athletes. This is a good man. He is a very 
good man, and he does not deserve this kind of treatment or behavior. 
What Dr. Ford alleges is entirely out of character with the entire 
course of Judge Kavanaugh's life.
  The recent sideshow stories about his drinking habits in high 
school--my gosh--and college over 30 years ago from people who never 
liked him in the first place are just a distraction. That this 
confirmation process has turned into a feeding frenzy about how nice 
Judge Kavanaugh was to his freshman roommate is an embarrassment.

  That said, the Senate has taken these allegations seriously, as we 
should. We invited Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to testify, and they 
did so. Committee investigators spoke with numerous individuals who 
said they

[[Page S6514]]

had relevant information to share. The committee also took statements 
under penalty of felony from the alleged witnesses Dr. Ford named.
  In addition, the FBI recently completed a supplemental background 
check of Judge Kavanaugh, and the FBI found no corroborating evidence 
for any of the recent allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Let me 
repeat that. The FBI found no corroborating evidence for any of the 
recent allegations against him--not a single piece of corroborating 
evidence.
  Now that the FBI has found no corroborating evidence, some of my 
Democratic colleagues shamefully have taken to calling into question 
the credibility of the FBI and its investigators. These attacks are 
irresponsible, to say the least. Indeed, contrary to what my Democratic 
colleagues have said, the FBI conducted a thorough, professional, and 
expeditious investigation. The FBI talked to the people it needed to 
talk to. What agents did not do is talk to someone who says he talked 
to someone more than 30 years ago who now doesn't remember seeing 
anything. They didn't investigate whether Judge Kavanaugh was, in fact, 
spotted near a punch bowl at a high school party, and they were right 
not to do so. An FBI investigation is not a wild goose chase.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues are also complaining that the FBI 
did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh during the supplemental 
investigation. Well, Dr. Ford testified in a public hearing for nearly 
3 hours. She told the committee that she had given us all of the 
information she could remember. The FBI does not need to repeat 
questions that have already been asked and answered, particularly when 
a person has already said she shared everything she can remember.
  Judge Kavanaugh, likewise, testified publicly at the hearing. He also 
spent several hours answering questions from committee investigators 
under penalty of felony on several different occasions. He has been 
thoroughly interrogated under oath in public and in private about these 
allegations.
  Some of my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues made the unfortunate 
choice last night to smear Judge Kavanaugh with yet another piece of 
innuendo. Eight members of the committee sent a letter in which they 
incorrectly implied that the six previous background checks on Judge 
Kavanaugh contained information concerning sexual improprieties or 
alcohol abuse. In so doing, they took advantage of rules that protect 
the confidentiality of witnesses to score cheap political points.
  Although we should all be disquieted by my colleagues' unscrupulous 
conduct, the American people can rest assured that no such information 
exists. If it did, Democrats would have raised it before now. Of that, 
we can certainly be certain. Indeed, after weeks of nonstop mudslinging 
and attempted character assassination by Senate Democrats and their 
media allies, no one--no one--has been able to find any charge against 
Judge Kavanaugh that sticks. And you can believe they have tried. Boy, 
can you believe they have tried. This has been the worst example of the 
Washington smear machine that I have seen in all my 42 years of Senate 
service.
  So we are left back where we were before this whole sordid saga 
began. Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified, unquestionably 
qualified, to serve on our Nation's highest Court. He is among the most 
distinguished, influential judges in the entire country. His opinions 
have received widespread acclaim and have won approval by the Supreme 
Court on multiple occasions--multiple occasions. The American Bar 
Association interviewed more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who 
know Judge Kavanaugh and who have appeared before him, and they all 
spoke with virtual unanimity in praising his integrity, his work 
product, and his judicial temperament.
  As somebody who tried cases in Federal court, I would have been happy 
to have had Judge Kavanaugh, who I know would give a fair shake to both 
sides. He is the kind of a judge I would have admired in every way, and 
I do, but I would have admired him in every way as a practicing trial 
lawyer who had quite significant experience.
  I hold the highest rating, the ABA rating from Martindale-Hubbell, 
which is the rating service that rates attorneys without their 
knowledge by going to other top lawyers in their area. I have had that 
highest rating in two States--in Pennsylvania and in Utah. So I take 
these matters very seriously. I believe in the Federal courts. I think 
they do a terrific job in this country. I have nothing but admiration 
for them. There are very few exceptions. And I think it is just a 
terrible, ridiculous problem that has arisen here because people are 
playing politics with this judge and this judgeship.
  I am sorry that Judge Kavanaugh has had to go through this ordeal. He 
did not deserve this. He is a good man. He spent decades building a 
reputation of decency and fairness. His opponents have attempted to 
destroy it with 3 weeks of smut and unsubstantiated allegations. It 
makes me sick to see this type of stuff. It certainly does when some of 
my colleagues buy into it, which they shouldn't. They should not.
  I know Brett Kavanaugh. I know him well. He is a man of great 
resilience and firm conviction. He is going to be a great Justice--
perhaps one of the greatest we have ever had. He will bring to the 
Supreme Court the integrity, honor, and intellectual rigor he has 
demonstrated throughout his entire career. And soon enough, he will 
have rebuilt his reputation. He will earn the respect of his colleagues 
and the American people through his writings and his decisions--of 
that, I have no doubt.
  I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. He is unquestionably 
qualified. He has gone through the most thorough vetting process I have 
ever seen. It has been a miserable, retched process in some respects, 
but he has come through, and we all give him credit for that. Hundreds 
of thousands of documents produced. Five days of hearings. Seven FBI 
background checks. We know what we need to know. The American people 
know what they need to know.
  It is time to vote. It is time to confirm this good man to the U.S. 
Supreme Court, and I hope this body will get to that decision-making 
process as soon as it can. It is time to end this charade. It is time 
to back this really good man. I predict he will make one of the great 
Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I am grateful to my colleagues who have given him the benefit of the 
doubt and who know him and know these things are not true.  I am 
grateful for the privilege of serving in the Senate. I sure hate to end 
my service with further smears to a good man like Judge Kavanaugh.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have read the FBI report. I listened to 
the Judiciary Committee hearings, including the second hearing with Dr. 
Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's opinions as a 
judge and his public record during his tenure in the White House.
  Based on his record, I cannot support his nomination for a lifetime 
appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. I reached this 
conclusion before Dr. Ford's allegations were made based on his court 
opinions and White House record. That conclusion was reenforced by 
Judge Kavanaugh's testimony in response to Dr. Ford's powerful and 
compelling testimony, raising very serious issues concerning Judge 
Kavanaugh's conduct.
  Judge Kavanaugh's response demonstrated his lack of impartiality and 
temperament, which is a critical qualification to serve as a judge. 
That view was reenforced by a letter written by over 1,000 law 
professors and legal scholars reaching the same conclusion I had drawn.
  I was very disappointed by the process on Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination that was dictated by the Republican leadership. For Senator 
McConnell, 10 months was inadequate time for the Senate to consider 
President Obama's choice of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Yet Senator McConnell had no difficulty in 
rushing the consideration of Judge Kavanaugh through the Senate in a 
fraction of that time.
  The Republican leadership refused to demand a complete discovery of 
relevant documents concerning Judge Kavanaugh. I served on the 
Judiciary Committee during the consideration of

[[Page S6515]]

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan when the Republicans' request for complete 
discovery was honored and welcomed by the Democrats. Such was not the 
case in regard to the Republicans honoring reasonable requests for 
information concerning Judge Kavanaugh.
  To make matters worse, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
inappropriately and unilaterally classified certain documents as 
confidential, preventing their public use during the confirmation 
process.
  After Dr. Ford's allegations became public, the Republican leadership 
refused to allow the FBI to conduct a proper investigation before 
scheduling a rushed, inadequate, and incomplete hearing without any 
additional witnesses beyond Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. The 
Republican leadership refused to call before the committee eye 
witnesses to the allegation.
  Prior to the first hearing and before I reached a conclusion on the 
nomination, I had requested an opportunity to meet one-on-one with 
Judge Kavanaugh, which is the Senate tradition on Supreme Court 
nominees. That request was denied by the White House.
  I cannot support Judge Kavanaugh because of his judicial record, his 
partisan leanings, and lack of impartiality and judicial temperament.
  I am concerned Judge Kavanaugh is inclined to turn back the clock on 
civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, reproductive choice, 
equality, the Affordable Care Act, workers' rights, clean air and clean 
water, and protection of abuses from corporate and political power, 
including the President of the United States.
  Our Constitution created the Supreme Court as an independent check 
and balance against both the executive and legislative branches of 
government. It should not be a rubberstamp for Presidential efforts to 
undermine the rule of law or independence of the Judiciary, self-
pardon, or derail Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russia's 
interference in our 2016 elections.
  The next Justice of the Supreme Court should not be predisposed to 
rich corporations at the expense of consumers or hollow out protections 
for Americans against abuse of power as Judge Kavanaugh's record as 
appellate judge reveals.
  Judge Kavanaugh has advanced legal theories as part of an activist 
agenda to overturn longstanding precedent to diminish the power of 
Federal agencies to help people, and he has demonstrated an expansive 
view of Presidential power that includes his belief that Presidents 
should not be subject to civil suits or criminal actions.
  Let me turn to some specific policies in Judge Kavanaugh's record 
that concerns me should he become Justice Kavanaugh. To point out what 
I just said, I look at the opinions and writings he has done.
  There are concerns Judge Kavanaugh's nomination could present a 
conflict of interest on the ongoing investigations of the Russian 
interference in the 2016 Presidential elections as the Supreme Court 
could be asked to rule on whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller has 
the right to subpoena the President to testify. In his confirmation 
hearing, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say whether he would recuse himself 
from this case should it reach the Court.
  I hope the Supreme Court would indeed compel President Trump to 
comply with any reasonable subpoena from the special counsel, citing 
the precedent of requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender tapes 
and other evidence during the Watergate investigations. The Supreme 
Court ultimately held that the President was not above the law. Some 
comments of Judge Kavanaugh suggest he believes the Nixon case was 
wrongly decided.
  There are also concerns that a Justice Kavanaugh would defer criminal 
investigations and prosecutions of a President's misconduct until after 
President Trump leaves office. Ironically, his views on Presidential 
power have changed since he worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth 
Starr on the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton. 
Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that a sitting President should have 
``absolute discretion'' to determine whether and when to appoint or 
remove a special counsel.
  It is clear Judge Kavanaugh holds a troubling record when it comes to 
Presidential power. In the case of Seven-Sky v. Holder, pertaining to 
our country's healthcare system, Judge Kavanaugh's opinion implied that 
he believes the President does not have to enforce laws if the 
President deems a statute to be unconstitutional, regardless of whether 
a court has already held it constitutional.
  Judge Kavanaugh was asked in 2016 if he could overturn precedent in 
any one case, and he said he would ``put the final nail'' in Morrison 
v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel 
statute. It appears Judge Kavanaugh believes the President is above the 
law and the only remedy for Presidential misconduct in office is 
impeachment by Congress, as suggested in some of his writings in 2009. 
He wrote we ``should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, 
criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions'' and that the 
``country loses when the President's focus is distracted by burdens of 
civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.''
  No one is above the law, including the President of the United 
States. We know President Trump has deep disregard for the rule of law. 
He constantly criticizes his own Justice Department, including urging 
the Justice Department to prosecute or not prosecute certain 
individuals. He has criticized the special counsel investigation into 
Russia interference in our election as a ``witch hunt,'' 
notwithstanding the growing number of convictions and guilty pleas 
obtained by Mr. Mueller. He has explored whether he has the power to 
pardon himself, family members, and associates. The future status of 
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who supervises the special 
counsel investigation, is in jeopardy as President Trump has made it 
known he would like Mr. Rosenstein to go.
  We need a Supreme Court Justice who can stand up to the President, 
stand up for the rule of law, and stand up for the independence of the 
Judiciary. Based on his track record, I am not convinced a Justice 
Kavanaugh would do that.
  While serving on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Judge 
Kavanaugh considered the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act 
of 2011. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care 
Act by a 3-to-0 vote, and Judge Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. 
His concurring opinion has been described as the roadmap challenging 
the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
  In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh argued it was premature to hear the 
case before the individual mandate had taken effect. Judge Kavanaugh 
laid out the legal justifications for President Trump not enforcing the 
individual mandate and for a judicial challenge to the 
constitutionality for the Affordable Care Act.
  A Justice Kavanaugh would raise significant concerns as to how he 
would rule on the protections of the Affordable Care Act against 
insurance companies discriminating on preexisting conditions, which 
could affect millions of Americans.
  In June of this year, President Trump's Department of Justice broke 
with longstanding Department precedent and cited it would no longer 
defend the Affordable Care Act. In a brief filed by the Trump 
administration in Texas v. United States, the administration joined 
with 20 Republican-led States to argue that the Affordable Care Act 
protections for people with preexisting conditions should be 
invalidated. In their court filing, the administration argued that when 
the Republican tax bill eliminated the individual mandate, the taxless 
individual mandate became unconstitutional and therefore the law's 
protections for those with preexisting conditions, including guaranteed 
issue and community rating, should be unenforceable.
  In 2017, Health and Human Services released a report stating that as 
many as 133 million nonelderly Americans have a preexisting condition. 
Every one of them would be at risk if this protection is held to be 
invalid by the Supreme Court. The Maryland Health Benefit Exchange 
estimates that in Maryland, there are approximately 2.5 million 
nonelderly Marylanders with preexisting conditions, including 320,000 
children all at risk.
  In addition to Texas v. United States, there are dozens of healthcare 
cases

[[Page S6516]]

pending in the lower courts which are likely to be appealed to the 
Supreme Court in the upcoming terms. The outcomes of these cases of the 
Supreme Court will directly impact access to healthcare for millions of 
American families, including the most vulnerable in our society.
  In each of these cases, there is a question about whether the 
Affordable Care Act creates rights that individuals can enforce in 
courts. These cases deal with critical issues, such as the scope of 
healthcare coverage for nursing mothers, false advertising by health 
insurance companies, and whether employers are required to provide 
healthcare coverage to their employees.
  Given Judge Kavanaugh's stated hostility to the Affordable Care Act, 
I fear that a Justice Kavanaugh would further restrict access to 
healthcare for many Americans, particularly in regard to women's 
healthcare, including birth control.
  In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court firmly established 
that the constitutional right to privacy protects women ``from unduly 
burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate 
her pregnancy.'' This standard, known as the ``undue burden'' standard, 
prohibits government action that ``has the purpose or effect of placing 
a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion on a 
nonviable fetus.''
  Judge Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, 
supporting the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to prohibit a 
pregnant immigrant teenager in government custody from exercising her 
constitutional right to make her own healthcare decisions. Judge 
Kavanaugh pays lip service to the undue burden standard articulated in 
Casey. He shuns longstanding precedent and chooses instead to impose 
his own moral standards on Jane Doe.
  In a heated dissent in Priests for Life v. HHS, Judge Kavanaugh 
argued that the Affordable Care Act's existing accommodations for 
religious employers that wanted an exception from the contraception 
coverage policy still placed a substantial burden on the employers' 
beliefs. Multiple cases referring women's access to birth control are 
working their way through the courts. A Justice Kavanaugh could become 
a decisive vote on the Supreme Court limiting access to reproductive 
care.
  Maryland is home to many rivers which are part of the vast Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. The land and waterways that supply our drinking water, 
support our native ecosystems, and contribute to our tourism and local 
economies are all at stake.
  Whether allowing more toxins in our air or more nuclear waste in our 
backyards, Judge Kavanaugh has prioritized corporate America over the 
health of American citizens and our environment.
  Justice Kennedy understood the values of Americans when weighing the 
costs and benefits of environmental protection. Judge Kavanaugh has not 
shown such concern for balancing values and interests.
  The Clean Air Act, which dramatically reduced these toxins after its 
passage in 1970, has prevented over 400,000 premature deaths, 1 million 
bronchitis cases, 2 million asthma attacks, and over 40 million 
children's respiratory illnesses. Judge Kavanaugh heard several major 
cases about the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. In each of 
these cases, he opposed the Agency's position. These protections should 
be strengthened, not eroded.
  As a lifelong Marylander and as a senior member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I have prioritized the protection of the 
Chesapeake Bay; thus, I have worked to defend the EPA's clean water 
rule, which has come under attack by Republican legislators and 
opponents in this administration. There are 67 percent of Marylanders 
who get their drinking water from sources that rely on small streams 
that are protected under the Clean Water Act.
  Partisan and shortsighted threats put our environment, economy, and 
public health in danger. If these attacks prove successful, protecting 
our citizens from the danger of water pollution will become far more 
difficult.
  So we are left with even more uncertainty with Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination. Would he support the clean water rule, which would protect 
the drinking water sources of 100 million Americans by making sure they 
are regulated under the Clean Water Act? We can all agree that few 
responsibilities of our government are more fundamental than clean, 
safe water, but I am not certain that Judge Kavanaugh would defend this 
duty on the Supreme Court.
  As a member of the DC Circuit Court, Judge Kavanaugh has ruled in a 
number of high-profile cases to limit the EPA's protection on issues 
like climate change and air pollution and against Maryland's interests 
as a coastal, downwind State. He has consistently voted against 
environmental regulations and often in favor of corporate interests. 
Judge Kavanaugh's environmental jurisprudence is rife with double 
standards, as he has frequently attempted to insert cost considerations 
into environmental regulations where none exist in statute.
  Furthermore, he places a very low burden of proof on businesses 
claiming injury from regulation, while at the same time asserting a 
much higher standard of proof for citizens arguing that pollution is 
sufficiently harmful to warrant regulation. The following cases 
involving Judge Kavanaugh document his support of powerful interests 
over public interests in the areas of public health and the 
environment.
  In EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an 
opinion overturning an EPA rule designed to lower smog-forming sulfur 
dioxide emissions by 73 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 
percent. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of the EPA and 
overruled Judge Kavanaugh's opinion. Nitrogen oxides account for two-
thirds of the airborne nitrogen that ends up in the Chesapeake Bay.
  In the case of the Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Judge 
Kavanaugh dissented from a decision not to rehear a case which had 
found that the EPA had the ability to regulate emissions in order to 
slow climate change.
  In the case of White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, in a dissent, 
Judge Kavanaugh insisted that the EPA must take costs to business into 
account when judging regulation, attempting to argue that instead of 
determining what is best for public health, the EPA should determine 
what is the least costly to business.
  In Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, Judge Kavanaugh dissented to a DC 
Circuit determination that the EPA was unreasonably delaying the 
implementation of a 2016 rule that curbed fossil fuel emissions of 
methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds, and toxic air 
pollutants.
  In Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh sided with producers 
of hydrofluorocarbons, saying the EPA had no authority to regulate 
them.
  In Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh dissented again and 
argued that the EPA must weigh the cost to business of revoking Clean 
Water Act permits.
  In each of these cases, Judge Kavanaugh sided with corporate 
interests over public health. There is a clear record here.
  My concerns about Judge Kavanaugh also include his lack of 
sensitivity to the protections of civil rights.
  In the case of South Carolina v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that 
South Carolina's voter ID law was not discriminatory and did not 
violate the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina residents are required to 
use driver's licenses, passports, military IDs, or voter registration 
cards to vote. Judge Kavanaugh disregards section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act and impedes on the voting rights of minorities who are 
impacted by South Carolina's voting laws. We all know how difficult it 
is in minority communities when you have these ID laws. We know how 
difficult it is for older people to get to places to get their 
identification. This sends a dangerous signal about Judge Kavanaugh's 
views on voting rights and racial justice in America.
  Judge Kavanaugh's ideological bias can also be seen in his rulings in 
employment discrimination cases, in which he has dissented and voted to 
dismiss claims that a majority of his DC Circuit colleagues have found 
to be meritorious.
  In Howard v. Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. 
House of Representatives, Judge Kavanaugh

[[Page S6517]]

dissented from a majority decision which held that under the 
Congressional Accountability Act, an African-American woman fired from 
her position as House of Representatives deputy budget director could 
pursue her claim of racial discrimination and retaliation in Federal 
court, giving her a right of action.
  Judge Kavanaugh dissented from that. He argued that the speech and 
debate clause of the Constitution prohibited the employee from moving 
forward with her claims, and he would have dismissed the case. His 
interpretation of this constitutional provision would bar workers in 
congressional offices and throughout the legislative branch from 
pursuing most of their discrimination claims in Federal court, 
including many sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation 
claims, only leaving available an inadequate and secret remedy.
  In Miller v. Clinton, the majority held that the State Department 
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when it imposed a 
mandatory retirement age and fired an employee when he turned 65. The 
State Department argued that it was exempt from the statute in light of 
a separate Federal law that permits U.S. citizens who are employed 
abroad to be excepted from U.S. anti-discrimination laws.
  The majority disagreed and held that there was nothing in the Basic 
Authorities Act that abrogates the broad proscription against personnel 
actions that discriminate on the basis of age and that the necessary 
consequences of the Department's position is that it is also free from 
any statutory bar against terminating an employee like Miller solely on 
account of his disability or race or religion or sex. Judge Kavanaugh 
dissented, arguing that the Basic Authorities Act overrides existing 
anti-discrimination laws. His willingness to embrace such a broad 
exemption from anti-discrimination laws is troubling.

  Once again, we see a pattern in Judge Kavanaugh's rulings, favoring 
the powerful over individual rights.
  In Rattigan v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a majority 
decision which ruled that an African-American FBI agent could pursue a 
case of improper retaliation for filing a discrimination claim, where 
the agency started a security investigation against him, as long as he 
did so without questioning unreviewable decisions by the FBI's Security 
Division. He stated that the entire claim must be dismissed despite the 
majority's warning that this was not required by precedent and that the 
courts should preserve ``to the maximum extent possible Title VII's 
important protections against workplace discrimination and 
retaliation.'' Judge Kavanaugh was in the minority on that opinion.
  Judge Kavanaugh's dissents in these cases embrace positions that 
carve out Federal employees from the protections of Federal employment 
discrimination laws or limit their ability to enforce such rights.
  Judge Kavanaugh has a pattern of ruling against workers and employees 
in other types of workplace cases as well, such as workplace safety, 
worker privacy, and union disputes. Let me cite a few examples.
  In SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, Judge Kavanaugh once again 
dissented from a majority opinion upholding a safety citation against 
SeaWorld following the death of a trainer who was working with a killer 
whale that had killed three trainers previously. While the majority 
deferred to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's 
finding that SeaWorld had insufficiently limited the trainers' physical 
contact with the whales, Judge Kavanaugh strongly disagreed and 
questioned the role of government in determining the appropriate levels 
of risk for workers.
  In National Labor Relations Board v. CNN America, Inc., Judge 
Kavanaugh dissented in part from Chief Judge Garland's majority opinion 
upholding a National Labor Relations Board's order that CNN recognize 
and bargain with a worker's union and finding that CNN violated the 
National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against union members in 
hiring. Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the finding that CNN was a 
successor employer, and his position would have completely absolved CNN 
of any liability for failing to abide by the collective bargaining 
agreement.
  In National Federation of Federal Employees v. Vilsack, Judge 
Kavanaugh dissented from the DC Circuit majority's ruling that 
invalidated a random drug testing program for U.S. Forest Service 
employees at Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. The majority, 
which included another Republican-appointed judge, observed that there 
was no evidence of any difficulty maintaining a zero-tolerance drug 
policy during the 14 years before the random drug testing policy was 
adopted and that the primary administrator of the Job Corps, the 
Department of Labor, had no such policy. That didn't affect Judge 
Kavanaugh--he dissented and would have restricted employees' privacy 
rights.
  In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Gates, 
Judge Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion that reversed the lower 
court's partial blocking of Department of Defense regulations, which 
had found that many of the Pentagon's regulations would ``entirely 
eviscerate collective bargaining.'' Judge Kavanaugh disagreed. Judge 
Tatel dissented in part, noting that Judge Kavanaugh's majority opinion 
would allow the Secretary of Defense to ``abolish collective bargaining 
altogether--a position with which even the Secretary disagrees.''
  In Heller v. District of Columbia, after the Supreme Court decided 5 
to 4 in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second 
Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, Washington, DC, 
passed laws that prohibited assault weapons and high-capacity magazines 
and that required certain firearms to be registered. We know the Heller 
decision, and we know the importance of the Heller decision's extending 
individual rights under the Second Amendment. Yet, after the District 
passed a law involving assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the 
same plaintiff, Richard Heller, argued that the new gun laws violated 
the Second Amendment.
  In the 2011 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a panel of three 
Republican-appointed judges ruled 2 to 1 that DC's ban on assault 
weapons and high-capacity magazines was constitutional. It happened to 
be three Republican-appointed judges. The ruling was 2 to 1. You 
guessed it--Judge Kavanaugh was the dissenter and would have held that 
the ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. He wrote in that 
opinion that there was no difference between handguns and assault 
weapons in that regard. I find that very troubling if he does not see 
the difference between a handgun and an assault weapon.
  A Justice Kavanaugh would worsen the problems caused by the Supreme 
Court's decision in Citizens United, which gave corporate speech First 
Amendment protection, increasing the flow of money into our elections. 
His record indicates he would continue opening the floodgates of dark 
and secret money into our political system. We have enough money 
already in the system, and we don't need more. A Justice Kavanaugh, to 
me, would mean an open season on more special interest money getting 
into our election system.
  In the case of EMILY's List v. Federal Election Commission, Judge 
Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a conservative three-judge panel that 
struck down FEC rules that were developed to address the influx of 
spending by outside groups and paved the way for the creation of super 
PACs.
  Judge Kavanaugh has been critical of the Chevron deference. Under 
Chevron, which is named for a 1984 Supreme Court opinion, courts defer 
to reasonable agency interpretations when Congress has been silent or 
ambiguous on an issue.
  In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame that honored Justice Scalia, Judge 
Kavanaugh said: ``The Chevron doctrine encourages agency aggressiveness 
on a large scale. Under the guise of ambiguity, agencies can stretch 
the meaning of statutes enacted by Congress to accommodate their 
preferred policy outcomes. I saw this firsthand when I worked in the 
White House, and I see it now as a judge.''
  Judge Kavanaugh's proposed solutions to Chevron is to simply 
determine the best reading of the statutes, and courts would no longer 
defer to

[[Page S6518]]

agencies' interpretations of statutes. Such an interpretation would put 
environmental, public health, and consumer protection interests at 
great risk.
  Judge Kavanaugh would have struck down the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau as unconstitutional when he wrote the majority 
opinion in a panel decision. An en banc panel of the DC Circuit 
ultimately vacated that and remanded Judge Kavanaugh's decision, 
upholding the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank reforms, including 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  That is what is at risk with a Justice Kavanaugh--that type of 
decision-making that hinders consumer protection, public health, and 
environmental issues.
  The purpose of the Chevron doctrine is to allow government agencies 
to carry out congressional intent, as our agencies are carrying out and 
interpreting increasingly complex statutes. Judicial review of such 
interpretations is governed by a two-step framework that was included 
in the Chevron case.
  The Chevron framework of review usually applies if Congress has given 
an agency the general authority to make rules with the force of law. If 
Chevron applies, a court asks at step one whether Congress directly 
addressed the precise issue before the court, using traditional tools 
of statutory construction. If the statute is clear on its face, the 
court must effectuate congressional intent. However, if the court 
concludes instead that the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect 
to the specific issue, the court proceeds to Chevron's step two.
  At step two, courts defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation 
of the statute. This is just common sense. Even the late conservative 
Justice Antonin Scalia defended the Chevron doctrine as an important 
rule-of-law principle.
  As the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has stated, 
Federal agencies issue regulations addressing a wide array of civil and 
human rights issues, including environmental protection, immigration 
policy, healthcare protection, education laws, workplace safety, and 
consumer protections. A Justice Kavanaugh will put all of these 
protections at risk.
  Judge Kavanaugh's performance at his hearing and his answers to 
questions for the record did not provide me any additional comfort 
about his nomination. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, judicial 
record, and legal career reveal a disturbing pattern.
  I believe he would be a Justice with an activist, conservative agenda 
who could disregard precedent to reach a desired outcome. A Justice 
Kavanaugh could serve as a rubberstamp for the worst successes of the 
Trump administration.
  Judge Kavanaugh had several opportunities to stand up for the 
independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. He has refused to 
condemn President Trump's attack on Justice Ginsburg or Judge Curiel 
due to his Mexican heritage. I recall by contrast, when we had Judge 
Gorsuch before us with his confirmation hearings, he said that ``when 
anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a Federal 
judge, well, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing, 
because I know the truth.'' Judge Kavanaugh wouldn't even go that far.
  Judge Kavanaugh refused to comment on President Trump's repeated 
attempts to politicize criminal prosecutions at the Department of 
Justice.
  His testimony following Dr. Ford's testimony is particularly 
troubling. His tirade against members of the Judiciary Committee, his 
partisan attacks, and his conspiracy theories reveal real concerns to 
me about his impartiality and judicial temperament and whether he would 
be a partisan on the Court. The American people want an independent 
voice on the Supreme Court to protect their individual rights against 
those in power, be it the President or powerful corporate interests.
  Under our Constitution, the courts must act as an independent branch 
of government and as a check and balance against the abuse of power. 
The Supreme Court is the guardian of America's constitutional rights 
against the powerful. After reviewing Judge Kavanaugh's record, I 
believe he is not the right choice to safeguard these fundamental 
principles. I will vote no on his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is extraordinary where we find ourselves 
today. We are on the verge of a cloture vote and possibly a 
confirmation vote for Judge Kavanaugh to join the Supreme Court. At the 
same time, we have credible allegations of sexual assault against a 
nominee, and they are not just lingering; they are developing.
  The FBI investigation that we hoped would be full and fair has turned 
out to be neither after the Trump White House and Senate Republicans 
appear to have successfully imposed so many restrictions as to render 
it almost meaningless.
  I am afraid that from the very beginning of this nomination, the 
vetting of Judge Kavanaugh has never been a genuine effort to discover 
the truth. Instead, at every turn, it has been a transparent and 
partisan attempt to keep the American people in the dark about the 
vulnerabilities of a controversial nominee who, if he is confirmed, is 
going to shape our lives for a generation.
  From start to finish, at every step, this has been a unilateral 
effort by the Trump White House and Senate Republicans to protect their 
nominee instead of protecting the American people or--I might say--to 
protect the Supreme Court. They have been driven by the impulse to rush 
and to conceal.
  I want to commend my friends Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Chris 
Coons for working together in good faith to demand more from this 
process. An investigation into the serious allegations of sexual 
misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh is the first step, but it should have 
happened weeks ago.
  Until now, such investigations have been routine any time new, 
derogatory information surfaces about a nominee. Unfortunately, the 
investigation completed over the last few days falls short of any 
reasonable standard. I think it fell short by design.
  We have already heard about many of its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, 
Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other witness who attempted unsuccessfully--
attempted unsuccessfully--to share relevant information with the FBI.
  The Senate Republican leadership and the Trump White House did 
everything in their power to assure that this investigation was not a 
search for truth but rather a search for cover.
  A search for truth would have allowed the FBI to interview Dr. Ford's 
husband and her therapist, both of whom have stated that Dr. Ford 
mentioned Kavanaugh as her assaulter years ago.
  A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview 
numerous high school and college classmates who have come forward 
saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's conduct 
during those years that was consistent with the allegations and which 
contradict Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony.
  A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man 
who wrote a sworn statement asserting that he could help 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 an apparent contradiction--a total 
contradiction--with his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In 
fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to at least 
speak with Julia Swetnick, a third accuser. A search for the truth 
would have allowed the FBI to speak with Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend, 
who recalled that Mr. Judge told her ``ashamedly'' about a sexual 
incident that eerily mirrors both Dr. Ford's and Ms. Swetnick's 
allegations.

  There is no mistake here: This investigation was rigged by the White 
House and Senate Republicans.
  Instead of calling on the FBI 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's.

[[Page S6519]]

This individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead 
salaciously described the alleged sexual interests of Ms. Swetnick's. 
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 intent of 
the rape shield law. And to add to it, Ms. Swetnick was never even 
interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. Then she was 
shamed. It is outrageous, the way she was treated.
  Republicans have also claimed that the other individuals Dr. Ford 
identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have ``refuted'' 
her testimony. Well, that is just false. These individuals stated 
publicly that they do not recall the event. As Dr. Ford told the 
Judiciary Committee, that is not surprising, as ``it was a very 
unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable happened to them 
that evening.'' Yet one of these individuals has said publicly that she 
believes Dr. Ford.
  After reviewing the FBI's report this morning, within minutes, 
Republican Senators claimed there is a lack of corroborating evidence 
for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous restrictions they 
placed on this investigation, that claim is simply not true. But a 
predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a 
thorough investigation. That is basic. And this investigation false far 
short. It is a disservice to Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and Ms. Swetnick. I 
would go further to say that it is a disservice to survivors anywhere 
in this country.
  Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation 
and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. In a 
moment that I will never forget, when I asked her for her strongest 
memory, something from the incident she couldn't forget, she replied: 
``Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter 
between the two'' as a teenage Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned Dr. 
Ford down to the bed and attempted to sexually assault her. I believe 
what she said.
  The reason that a thorough, independent investigation is so critical 
is not because we need additional proof that Judge Kavanaugh was not 
telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious 
misogyny in his yearbook or whether he is ``Bart O'Kavanaugh'' who 
passed out from drunkenness. All of us here know he wasn't telling the 
truth in his testimony about that. The reason we needed a thorough 
investigation is that these women have offered credible accusations, 
and they have identified potential corroborating witnesses and 
evidence, and the Senate needs to know all of the facts before it can 
place the accused on the Nation's highest Court for a lifetime 
appointment.
  A thorough investigation is essential for another reason: We simply 
cannot take Judge Kavanaugh at his word. On issues big and small, 
anytime Judge Kavanaugh has been faced with questions that would place 
him in the middle of controversy, he has shown he cannot be trusted to 
tell the truth. Every single time he has testified before the Senate 
over the years, he has misled and dissembled. He misled the Senate 
about his role in a hacking scandal, in confirming controversial 
judicial nominees, and in shaping the legal justifications for some of 
the Bush administration's most extreme and now discredited policies.
  His appearance before us last week was no different. He gave 
testimony that veered into a tirade. He angrily dismissed Dr. Ford's 
testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his 
nomination. His conspiratorial ramblings--attributing the allegations 
to ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons''--were an insult to Dr. Ford, 
and they are an insult to survivors of sexual violence across the 
country. He evaded--as he always has when under oath--basic factual 
questions, choosing instead to show his disdain for members of the 
committee who had the audacity to ask him about his behavior during the 
time of the allegations.
  In my 44 years in the Senate, I have voted for more Republican-
appointed judges than almost all serving Republican Senators. That 
includes voting for Chief Justice Roberts. But I have never seen such a 
partisan performance by a nominee of either party to the Supreme Court 
or any other court. I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to 
evade and deny the truth in the service of his own raw ambition.
  If truth under oath means anything at all, Judge Kavanaugh has 
disqualified himself over and over and over again. He has neither the 
veracity nor the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest 
Court in our Nation. The truth has an odd way of coming out, one way or 
another. To avoid risking permanent damage to the integrity and 
legitimacy of our Nation's highest Court, I urge Senators to join me in 
voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
  Mr. President, I do not see anyone else seeking the floor, so I will 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it was a week ago today that Members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, were riveted by the 
compelling and powerful testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. It was 
a week ago today that Judge Brett Kavanaugh delivered his forceful 
rejoinder and rebuttal.
  Today I want to take a moment and share with Members of this Chamber 
and folks who may be watching something else that was happening during 
this entire hearing that I did not expect. It was powerful and unique 
and special in my experience as a public servant, and I have heard, as 
I have listened to other Senators of both parties who were present and 
with whom I talked to afterward, it was their experience as well:
  This conversation is bigger. It is bigger, it is pressing, and, I 
would say, it is more important than the question of one Supreme Court 
seat and one current nominee. It is a question that we, as a country at 
the highest levels of power, believe victims and survivors of sexual 
assault and are willing to listen to them, to believe them, and to take 
action.
  So what was it that happened last Thursday? As I tried to pay 
attention to the remarkable testimony of Dr. Ford, my phone was blowing 
up. I got texts, I got instant messages, I got phone calls, I got 
emails, I got Facebook posts--I got messages in more ways that you can 
connect with me than I knew was possible. These were stories--powerful 
stories--stories that friends of mine, people I have known for years or 
decades, people I barely know or people I hope to get to meet. They 
were sharing with me stories of assault. They were told by classmates, 
neighbors, friends, constituents, people who had carried these burdens 
alone for years.
  These stories are difficult to hear, but it is important that they be 
heard. It is important to understanding why survivors stay silent, and 
it is important to understanding why we, as a body and a nation, must 
get this moment right. They are important to understanding why the 
President and others are wrong when they say that if a victim's 
allegations are true, she would have filed a report or come forward 
decades ago.
  In response to the question, why didn't Dr. Christine Blasey Ford 
come forward earlier, I have just this experience to share. The texts 
and emails, the conversations in person and over the phone, with 
friends I have known for so long and friends I have just met, make it 
powerfully clear to me that the many ways in which assault and 
violation happens in our country between people have as many different 
reasons why they hide them, carry them, and keep them in darkness and 
quiet and in shame, and each one of those stories reminds me even more 
powerfully the reasons we must--we must--demonstrate that they are 
heard.
  One friend from Delaware, a cancer survivor--someone I have spoken 
about on this floor before because of her survival of a nearly life-
ending cancer--confided in me she was terrorized and raped as a small 
child. Living with the effects of that experience, she said, has been 
way harder than cancer. She said to me early childhood trauma can be 
murky and difficult to describe and

[[Page S6520]]

doesn't lend itself easily to a courtroom narrative understanding. She 
is right.
  A male friend, someone I know from high school, shared with me an 
experience he had during a spring break trip. He shared how, on a 
biology field trip to Mexico, when he sought help from a trip organizer 
after snorkeling fins blistered his ankles, after administering first 
aid in the hotel room, he was assaulted. His comment was he was too 
shocked to call for help and did not tell anyone for over three 
decades.
  He is right. She is right. They are not alone.
  Today I want to share a few more stories shared over the last weeks 
by brave men and women who are shining a light on the challenges, the 
fear, the shame, and the anger surrounding sexual assault. This is 
under the hashtag ``Why I Didn't Report.'' I think it helps lend some 
understanding to the dynamics of surviving assault.
  Under the hashtag ``Why I Didn't Report'': ``I had known him for 
years,'' one victim said.
  Why I didn't report:

       Because he was ``sorry.'' Because I was drunk. Because I 
     was young and ashamed and felt like I had somehow asked for 
     it even though I had said NO and STOP. . . . Because even 
     typing this still makes me feel it all again.

  Another, in response to this hashtag, said:

       Because my counselor said they won't believe you because 
     you're not a pretty girl.

  Another said:

       I blamed myself. I was humiliated and hurt. I thought they 
     were my friends. I felt safe until I wasn't and then it was 
     too late. I wanted to wash it away and never think about it 
     again.

  Another said:

       Because I feel ashamed of what happened and didn't want to 
     publicly ruin someone's life, even though they privately 
     ruined mine.
  Because:

       He was my boyfriend and I was sleeping. He told me he had 
     been accused of this before and it wasn't rape because we 
     were dating.

  Another victim posted:

       My mom did report my 18 year old cousin when I was 9. I had 
     to testify sitting across a table from him. I froze and 
     cried, couldn't speak. All charges were dropped.

  Earlier this week, at a townhall at the Delaware City Fire Company, 
someone I have known for decades got out of her car, came up to me, 
gave me a huge hug, and, weeping, said: I never told my husband, I 
never told my son, and today I have. In her voice, there was both heavy 
emotion and an enormous sense of relief--and, I have to say, for me, a 
sense of great pain that I was wishing I could do nothing except sit 
and listen, to honor her story, to provide some sense of comfort and 
support and recognition. Yet I had to move on to the townhall after a 
few moments.
  At a dinner here in Washington just last night, someone shared with 
me an amazing story of her daughter's suffering. To hear a story of 
that power and pain in the midst of a social setting is both wonderful, 
in that they are trusting with a story they have held on to for so 
long, and terrible, in that it is a reminder of the ways in which we 
speak to each other of surviving assault in hushed tones and in dark 
corners and on the internet and anonymously.
  Whatever comes out of this week, whatever comes out of the 
proceedings of this floor today, tomorrow, and this weekend, we must 
listen and recognize that hundreds of thousands of American women and 
men have been victims, are victims, and will be victims, of sexual 
assault--and, according to our Department of Justice, at least two-
thirds have never reported it.
  There is an ocean of pain in this Nation not yet fully heard, not yet 
appropriately resolved, not yet fully addressed. Everyone--everyone--
everyone within earshot of my voice--the women and men in this Chamber, 
staff, journalists, colleagues, friends, members of the public, those 
who think Brett Kavanaugh should be a Supreme Court Justice and those 
who do not, those who have either themselves been victimized by assault 
or know someone, a loved one, a family member, a neighbor, a classmate, 
a fellow parishioner, a colleague, or a friend--we all--all--have an 
opportunity here, a moment, to make it clear that we welcome and will 
respect and listen to and act on stories that have been and will be 
shared with us and that we will act.
  If I could make one request, it would be that we come out on the 
other side of these last few weeks with an awareness of those who are 
in silent, deep, and lonely pain--often right next to us, all around 
us, in our families, in our churches, in our workplaces, and in our 
communities--and that we give them the listening, the understanding, 
and the embrace to help them heal.
  You know, in today's hyperpartisan environment, where we are quick to 
question motives of others and search for any excuse to discredit, 
devalue, and doubt, I also wanted to add one small but I think 
important point: Every victim who has spoken to me in the past week was 
not looking for anything. They were not looking for a settlement. They 
were not looking for some lawsuit. They were simply looking for 
acknowledgement. They were looking to share something they have carried 
too long alone. They just wanted to be heard.
  Our country is watching. This is a moment where the Senate as an 
institution and the country as a whole need to show we can and will do 
better. I hope we will listen--that we will listen as we continue to 
move forward important legislation: the Violence Against Women Act, 
which my predecessor, then-Senator Biden, helped champion in a 
bipartisan way over several Congresses; the Victims of Child Abuse Act, 
which even now I am working with a bipartisan team to try to get 
through this Chamber to be reauthorized. There are many more things we 
can and should do to work to combat sexual abuse and sexual assault and 
to help prevent and heal.
  What I most want to say today, to my friends and acquaintances, to my 
constituents and my community, to my Nation and the world that may well 
be watching this moment in the United States, to those whose stories I 
have just shared and whose stories I have just heard, I simply want to 
say this: You have touched my heart deeply. I hear you, and I thank 
you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, this is the first time I have come to the 
floor to speak on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh since the events of 
the last several weeks. I want to say this at the outset in the most 
dispassionate way I can: I have come to the conclusion Brett Kavanaugh 
is perhaps the most dangerous nominee for the Supreme Court in my 
lifetime, and I am going to vote no tomorrow when the cloture vote 
comes before this Senate.
  Let me be clear. I had decided to vote no before his confirmation 
hearing, before the allegations of sexual assault were levied against 
him, before his second confirmation hearing, before the FBI refreshed 
its background check investigation. That doesn't mean I wasn't willing 
to do my due diligence; it is simply that his judicial record, which I 
became familiar with as he was becoming known as one of the finalists 
for this selection, was enough for me to decide he wouldn't rule fairly 
on the questions before the Court that affect the millions of people I 
represent in Connecticut.
  Every year, I take a walk across my State. It takes about 5 days. It 
is about 120 miles, give or take. It is a chance for me to conduct a 
weeklong running focus group where I get to talk to hundreds of voters 
who aren't plugged into politics on a daily basis. The people I meet at 
gas stations and auto body shops and folks who are out walking their 
dog in the morning are part of the 98 percent of Americans who don't 
watch Sean Hannity or Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow. Yet they have 
strong opinions about what is happening in this country just like 
everybody else, and I am glad they share them with me.
  For the last 2 years, since President Trump took office, the No. 1 
topic people talk to me about during the walk is healthcare. People in 
Connecticut are scared about what they see as a coordinated effort that 
is underway in Washington to take away their insurance coverage and the 
protections for people

[[Page S6521]]

in my State who have preexisting conditions.
  Folks in Connecticut don't think the Affordable Care Act is perfect. 
They want us to work on making it better, but they don't want us to end 
it without a plan for what is going to come next. They were glad when 
the repeal plan was defeated last year. Now they are worried that 
President Trump is trying to use the courts to get done what he 
couldn't get done in the people's branch of government, the legislative 
branch.
  Brett Kavanaugh was vetted by two conservative political groups whose 
chief legislative priority is repealing the Affordable Care Act come 
hell or high water. The head of one of those groups said on television 
it really didn't matter to him which of the names on the list Trump 
picked because they all shared their group's priorities. Trump himself 
told the American public he would never pick a judge like John Roberts, 
who voted to uphold the major parts of the Affordable Care Act.
  Kavanaugh, in his judicial writing, has been hostile to the 
Affordable Care Act. Frankly, I will take the President's word for it. 
He picked Brett Kavanaugh to help him unwind judicially a law he 
couldn't unwind legislatively, and that will have huge consequences on 
folks in my State who need insurance coverage for things like cancer, 
addiction, or mental illness.
  While Kavanaugh hasn't said a lot specifically on the ACA, his views 
on choice are pretty well known. As a lawyer in the Bush White House, 
Kavanaugh went out of his way to note that Roe v. Wade isn't settled 
law, that it would take just five Supreme Court Justices to get rid of 
it.
  As a circuit court judge, he denied access to an abortion for a young 
immigrant girl, even though she met the legal criteria to receive the 
procedure. He uses rhetoric and terminology that is right out of the 
anti-choice dictionary when talking about reproductive healthcare. He 
talks about abortion on demand. He called birth control an abortion-
inducing drug.
  Kavanaugh, no doubt about it, is going to vote to overturn Roe v. 
Wade. Any Senators who have convinced themselves otherwise are living 
in a fantasy world.
  The people I represent in Connecticut don't want the Supreme Court of 
the United States telling them what they can and cannot do with their 
bodies. The judicial doctrine of privacy comes from a Connecticut case, 
Griswold v. Connecticut, brought by a pioneering civil rights lawyer in 
New Haven. In my State, we prefer judges to stay out of our private 
business.
  Finally, when I am walking across the State of Connecticut, I am 
talking an awful lot about the issue of gun violence. It is not just 
the murder of 20 little first graders in Sandy Hook that still hangs 
heavy over Connecticut; it is the murders in Hartford, New Haven, 
Bridgeport, and the suicides all over our State continue unabated.
  Listen, it is not as though everybody I meet when I am walking across 
the State agrees with me on what we should do. When I walk east to 
west, I spend half of my time in Eastern Connecticut--a part of the 
State where people still love their guns, and I get into lots of 
spirited arguments about assault weapons and gun permits. What there is 
relative agreement on is that it is our choice on how we should 
regulate guns.
  Here is where Judge Kavanaugh's views get outside of the mainstream. 
His testimony before the Judiciary Committee suggests that he is a 
Second Amendment radical, believing almost all restrictions on gun 
ownership are likely unconstitutional. Here is a for instance: He 
stated in his testimony, as long as a weapon is in regular commercial 
use, it can never ever be banned. That is a recipe for disaster because 
all you need then is a very short period of legalization of automatic 
weapons, followed by a few years of robust commercial sales, and then 
that gun has permanent constitutional protection forever. That is 
absurd, but that is Brett Kavanaugh's view on the Second Amendment.
  What I am saying is this. I didn't need the tragic drama of the last 
few weeks to know how I felt about Brett Kavanaugh serving on the 
Supreme Court. I was an early ``no'' vote, and I don't apologize for 
coming to that conclusion months ago. Yet that doesn't mean I am not 
entitled to have a strong opinion on what has played out before the 
eyes of America during the month of September, and it doesn't mean I 
don't have the right to make the argument here that for those in the 
Senate who weren't as sure as I was, what happened in the last 30 days 
should be dispositive on the future of this nomination.
  I said at the outset, I thought Brett Kavanaugh is the most dangerous 
nominee to the Court in my lifetime. That opinion is one I arrived at 
only after hearing his testimony before the committee last week.
  I think it is really important for Senators to understand the 
Pandora's box they are opening by voting yes, endorsing his 
performance, his demeanor, and what I argue is maybe most important: 
his bias.
  Let me say first, I don't believe any Democrat should defend the way 
in which Christine Blasey Ford's allegations were brought to light. I 
don't know who leaked the contents of that letter. I think it is fair 
to guess it was somebody who didn't want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed. Dr. 
Ford should have controlled her story or at least the ranking member of 
the committee to whom she entrusted it should have controlled that 
story. The timing of its release just sucked. Something that explosive, 
that serious, shouldn't be shoved into debate at the very last minute.
  Here is the thing. The way in which the substance is revealed does 
not change the substance. Yet it may give you reason to be angry about 
the way in which it was made known. It may make you suspicious of the 
motivations of the person who did it, but the method doesn't alter the 
substance. The substance is Dr. Ford's very credible account of a 
sexual assault carried out against her by somebody who wants to be on 
the Supreme Court.
  Let me be clear. There is no reason not to believe Dr. Ford. Plenty 
of Republicans admitted to this after she came before the committee. 
She disclosed the incident well before Kavanaugh was nominated. She was 
composed, credible, and thoughtful in her testimony. Why on Earth would 
she put herself and her family through this horror if not because she 
is telling the truth?
  Though I believed Dr. Ford, you frankly don't even have to be sure 
she is telling the truth to decide the risk of nominating someone with 
these kinds of serious charges swirling around them is an unnecessary 
burden for this body or the judicial system to bear. If there is a 
chance he did these things, just move on to the next eligible 
conservative candidate.
  These charges bother me greatly. What truly shook me about 
Kavanaugh's testimony and the speeches many of my Republican colleagues 
have delivered on this floor since is the idea proffered by Judge 
Kavanaugh that these charges are simply a result of a Clinton-connected 
liberal conspiracy theory.
  Let me read for you what he actually said last Thursday.

       When I did at least okay enough at the hearing that it 
     looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was 
     needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready.

  He then went on to allege:

       The whole 2-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 
     had been stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf 
     of the Clintons.

  Come on. Listen, I am telling you that I don't like how this 
information was released to the press. I am not trying to be a blind 
partisan here, but to believe and then to publicly claim that this is 
some larger organized effort by Democrats who purposefully held back 
this allegation until the last minute is to reveal to America your true 
political bias.
  There was no conspiracy. There was no orchestrated smear campaign. 
Listen, if that was our MO, why didn't we use it on Neil Gorsuch, when 
there was even more anger on our side because that was the seat that 
should have been Merrick Garland's. Why didn't we use fake allegations 
of sexual misconduct against the President's Cabinet nominees, who 
engendered much more grassroots anger in early 2017 than Brett 
Kavanaugh did in the summer and fall of 2018?

[[Page S6522]]

  It just doesn't make sense because it is made up. There are zero 
facts behind it, and for a nominee to the Supreme Court to believe such 
a far-fetched story and then to angrily warn Democrats that ``what goes 
around comes around,'' is one of the most astonishing unveilings of 
political bias that I have ever witnessed from a nominee asking for the 
support of the Senate. That has serious long-term consequences for us 
as a republic, because it used to matter that in the midst of all of 
our political heated debates here, there were at least nine people in 
America whom Americans could credibly believe didn't care about our 
usually petty political partisan fights. There were nine people that 
Americans could believe were above it all.
  Now we are on the verge of perhaps sending someone to the Supreme 
Court who called Democrats ``embarrassments'' and who warned his 
political opponents menacingly that we will reap what we sow. I don't 
really know what that means, but I am sure that I know that I don't 
want a nominee to the Supreme Court saying anything like that.
  Now, the fight over the Kennedy seat was going to be controversial 
and contentious. There is no way around that, but it didn't need to go 
down like this. It didn't need to divide this country. It didn't need 
to marginalize victims and to politicize the Supreme Court, like this 
nomination has.
  Add to the conspiratorial beliefs the hatred that was oozing from him 
toward Democrats that day and the likelihood that this nominee was also 
lying over and over about, at the very least, relatively small things 
for which he had really little reason not to tell the truth.
  I am sorry. I know this sounds trivial, talking about things like a 
devil's triangle or boofing, but is it really not too much to ask, to 
expect that a nominee for the most important court in the world tell 
you the truth even about the small embarrassing stuff?
  Even if you don't believe Dr. Ford, I just don't know why you would 
want to put somebody on the Supreme Court who has a habit of fibbing. 
This is the Supreme Court.
  So I guess, for me, it comes down to this question, which I think is 
a really, really important one: Why did Republicans stick with Brett 
Kavanaugh, given all of this, when Republicans could have just sent him 
back to the President and brought before this body another really 
conservative judge who would have regularly sided with the right side 
of the Court?
  This process isn't a trial. It is a job interview. Not a single one 
of us would hire someone into our office if credible allegations like 
this were attached to that person or if they conducted themselves in an 
in-person interview the way that Brett Kavanaugh did on Thursday. 
Seriously, think of that. Not a single Senator would willingly hire a 
person with these questions surrounding him or her, but we are here 
with a vote pending in a matter of hours.
  Now, I just came from that secure briefing room where I was force-fed 
a half-baked FBI investigation that I was told I had to read and digest 
in no more than an hour. It was humiliating. I felt like I was 9 years 
old.
  But that humiliation was sort of the capstone for me on explaining 
why we are still moving forward on Brett Kavanaugh. At least it helped 
me to fill out the details of my theory of the case, and I will end 
here.
  Listen, I get it that it is really hard to be a Republican today, and 
I mean that sincerely. The things that the Republican Party used to 
stand for have been obliterated by this President. The Grand Old Party 
has become the party of Trump. There is only a thread of unifying 
ideology left between this administration and congressional 
Republicans. Republicans are much more so organized now around a kind 
of cult of personality. I know that many of my Republican colleagues 
are really uncomfortable about this.
  Without this unifying set of ideas that can bind together the 
President and congressional Republicans, I fear that you are using this 
nomination to cling to the one thing left that you can agree on, and 
that is the methodical complete domination of your political opponents. 
On social media they call it ``owning the libs,'' because why else 
would you stick with this nominee other than just because you want to 
shove down the throats of Democrats this deeply flawed nominee? Why 
else would you try to railroad through his nomination without a 
background check, and then, when you are forced to do one, humiliate us 
all by giving us 60 minutes to review what turned out to be a product 
that raises more questions than it answered?
  I wish the answer was that you all think that Brett Kavanaugh is 
worth it. He is just that important a jurist, that serious a thinker to 
do whatever it takes to get him on the Court, but I don't think that is 
what Republicans believe. So we are left searching for the real reason 
why we are having a vote tomorrow.
  I don't hate my Republican colleagues. I don't have any interest in 
dominating them or getting my way just to get my way, and I wish I 
could explain this process, especially over the last few weeks, through 
any other prism than the desire by Republican leadership to simply bury 
Democrats into the ground.
  I hate the way this has played out. I hate the lateness of the 
revelation. I hate the rush job of an investigation. I hate the 
inability to recognize that none of us, Democrats or Republicans, are 
obligated to stand by a nominee that has real questions about his 
history and his impartiality just because the President likes him.
  This is not right. None of this is right, and the elevation of Brett 
Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, filled with hatred toward Democrats and 
our allies, surrounded by legitimate questions about his fitness for 
office, is totally unnecessary, even to try to accomplish the political 
aims of my Republican friends in the majority. In the end, most 
importantly, the way in which this has been done is deeply, deeply 
hurtful to the unity of our great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, last week, millions of people were glued 
to their screens as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. Dr. Ford's account of the most traumatic 
event of her life was harrowing. The pain of retelling this story was 
evident, and she did it for no personal gain whatsoever. In fact, her 
life has been turned upside down as a result of her decision to come 
forward. The courage she showed is remarkable. Dr. Ford's testimony was 
credible and compelling. I believe Dr. Ford.
  Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was very different. He spent more than 40 
minutes ranting, raving, and pedaling fact-free partisan conspiracy 
theories, and then he proceeded to insult Senators, to scream at the 
people who had the nerve to question him. He evaded some questions and 
gave obviously false answers to others. It was a performance that would 
have been right at home on talk radio or in a Republican primary 
campaign or at a Donald Trump rally, but it was delivered by a judge 
who is asking the Senate to confirm him to a lifetime appointment to a 
completely nonpolitical position as the swing vote on the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  It is the job of the Senate to decide whether or not to confirm Judge 
Kavanaugh. Senators must vote yes or vote no on elevating him to a 
lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. It is not a criminal trial. 
Nobody is entitled to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. If 
he is not confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh would still be serving as a 
Federal judge on the second highest court in the United States, and the 
President, I am sure, will nominate another candidate for this job.
  For these reasons, I believe that Dr. Ford's credible allegations and 
Judge Kavanaugh's partisan, venomous rants are sufficient reasons to 
vote no on his nomination.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saw the same 
hearing. They watched Dr. Ford sit through hours of testimony. They 
heard her when she clearly and unequivocally said she was 100 percent 
sure that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, and they watched 
Judge Kavanaugh demonstrate to the world that he lacks the temperament 
and the truthfulness to sit on the Nation's highest Court.
  For those Senators who don't care that Judge Kavanaugh thinks the 
multiple sexual assault allegations he

[[Page S6523]]

faces must be ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons,'' who simply aren't 
sure whether those credible allegations are a sufficient reason to vote 
no, and who would like to see more evidence, the sensible course of 
action has always been obvious--a serious, nonpartisan FBI 
investigation to uncover the truth as best we can to make sure we are 
as informed as we can be before we have to vote. But that is not what 
has happened.
  First, instead of taking Dr. Ford seriously, Mitch McConnell 
scheduled a committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination the next 
day. He suspended the Senate vote only when it became clear that 
Republicans wouldn't have the votes they needed if they tried to ram 
the nomination through the Senate right at that moment.
  Then the President offered the smallest fig leaf of an FBI 
investigation. Now, I have just come from the secure room where the 
summaries of FBI interviews and other FBI-generated documents were made 
available.
  Senators have been muzzled. So I will now say three things that 
committee staff has explained are permissible to say without violating 
committee rules--statements that I have also independently verified as 
accurate.
  One, this was not a full and fair investigation. It was sharply 
limited in scope and did not explore the relevant confirming facts.
  Two, the available documents do not exonerate Mr. Kavanaugh.
  Three, the available documents contradict statements Mr. Kavanaugh 
made under oath.
  I would like to back up these three points with explicit statements 
from the FBI documents--explicit statements that should be available 
for the American people to see, but the Republicans have locked the 
documents behind closed doors with no plans to inform the American 
public of any new information about the Kavanaugh nomination.
  The Kavanaugh nomination was a sham, and that is the President's 
fault because the President is the one who limited the scope of this 
investigation, who refused to allow it to continue for more than a few 
days, and who refused to ensure that the FBI completed a thorough 
investigation, including interviews with all relevant witnesses. The 
statements the President made about the scope of the investigation were 
false. If that wasn't bad enough, the President has viciously attacked 
Dr. Ford for bravely coming forward to tell her story. How could any 
Senator accept this sham?

  It is clear the fix is in. Republicans want to confirm Judge 
Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and they will ignore, suppress, or 
shout down any inconvenient facts that might give the American people 
pause about this nomination. Republicans are playing politics with the 
Supreme Court, and they are willing to step on anyone, including the 
victim of a vicious sexual assault in order to advance their agenda.
  Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the highest Court in our 
country is the results of a decades-long assault of our Judiciary, 
launched by billionaires and giant corporations who want to control 
every branch of government. For years, those wealthy and well-connected 
people have invested massive sums of money into shaping our courts to 
fit their liking. Working in partnership with their Republican buddies 
in Congress, they have executed a two-part campaign to capture our 
courts.
  Part 1: Stop fair-minded, mainstream judges from getting confirmed to 
serve on the Federal courts.
  Part 2: Flood Federal courts with narrow-minded, pro-corporate 
individuals who will tilt the courts in favor of the rich and powerful 
and against women, workers, people of color, low-income Americans, 
LGBTQ individuals, people with disabilities, Native Americans, 
students, and everyone who doesn't have money or power right here in 
Washington.
  With Trump in the White House and Congress controlled by Republicans, 
the wealthy and well-connected have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to 
control our courts for the next generation.
  During his Presidential campaign, President Trump made it clear that 
rightwing, pro-corporate groups would not only have a voice in 
selecting Supreme Court Justices, they would get to handpick their 
favorites. So those groups handed him a list of their top picks for the 
Supreme Court, and President Trump has picked judges exclusively from 
that list.
  His most recent selection is Judge Brett Kavanaugh. There are a lot 
of reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. I want to discuss 
three of them: His record, the broken and biased confirmation process, 
and the allegations of sexual assault.
  Let's start with Judge Kavanaugh's record. Judge Kavanaugh has spent 
12 years on the DC Circuit Court. His rulings demonstrate why radical, 
rightwing groups and their friends in the Senate are so eager to give 
him a seat on the Supreme Court. Pick an issue--almost any issue--and 
there is ample reason to be alarmed.
  One is a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. When the 
Trump administration sought to block a young immigrant woman's right to 
access abortion care, Judge Kavanaugh sided with the government, 
claiming that allowing the woman, who had done everything necessary to 
obtain access to an abortion, should be further delayed in obtaining 
that care--a delay that would likely have prevented her from obtaining 
an abortion.
  When religious organizations challenged the contraceptive care 
requirement of the Affordable Care Act, Judge Kavanaugh again opposed 
access to reproductive care, arguing that requiring religious 
nonprofits to submit a simple form allowing them to opt out of 
providing comprehensive contraceptive coverage but ensuring that the 
employees had access to that care was unconstitutional.
  On consumer protection, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the agency that stands up for Americans 
cheated by corporate criminals, is unconstitutional.
  On environmental safety, he has ruled to overturn the rules that help 
keep dangerous toxins out of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
  On voting rights, he upheld South Carolina's discriminatory voter ID 
laws.
  On gun safety, he dissented from an opinion upholding an assault 
weapons ban and a gun registration requirement. In speeches on gun 
safety, he admitted that most lower court judges disagree with his 
extreme position on the Second Amendment.
  On money in politics, he wrote an opinion that would permit foreign 
individuals to spend unlimited sums of money on issue ads in the U.S. 
elections.
  Oh, and when it comes to Presidential power and the rule of law, 
Judge Kavanaugh believes that sitting Presidents shouldn't be subjected 
to personal, civil, or criminal investigations while they are in 
office. That is very convenient for the current occupant of the Oval 
Office.
  That is just the part of Judge Kavanaugh's record that we know about, 
and that raises the second reason Judge Kavanaugh should not be 
confirmed to the Supreme Court: the secretive process that Republicans 
have used to advance his nomination. From the moment President Trump 
announced Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, Republicans have worked 
overtime to get him on the Supreme Court without giving Senators--or 
the American people--a meaningful opportunity to examine his full 
record.
  Senate Republicans have played an elaborate game of ``hide the ball'' 
at every step of this process. Judge Kavanaugh spent many years in 
government, but the Republicans have refused even to request hundreds 
of thousands of documents from his time in service. They have 
designated other documents as ``committee confidential'' to hide them 
from the public. To top it off, just days before Judge Kavanaugh was 
scheduled to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a Bush White 
House attorney announced that over 100,000 documents from Judge 
Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office would be withheld 
on the basis of constitutional privilege.
  A few years ago, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme 
Court. Like Judge Kavanaugh, she had served in public office. Unlike 
the Kavanaugh confirmation process, the Kagan process included the 
release of nearly every document related to her time in service. In 
fact, no one has found an example of so much of a nominee's record in 
government being hidden from the Senate and hidden from

[[Page S6524]]

the public as in Judge Kavanaugh's case.
  The rushed and secretive process that has characterized Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination raises this question: What is he hiding? Why 
doesn't he insist that his record be made public? Why doesn't he want a 
full investigation of the sexual assault claims made against him? Why 
won't Republicans insist on transparency and a meaningful 
investigation?
  Evidently, neither Judge Kavanaugh nor the Senate Republicans care 
about the facts.
  Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple 
women. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez shared their 
stories of sexual assault at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh and risked 
their safety and the safety of their families to do so.
  Instead of making sure that these allegations are thoroughly 
investigated so the Senators and the public can make judgments based on 
facts, Republicans launched a campaign to attack and discredit these 
courageous women. Donald Trump openly mocked Dr. Ford at a political 
rally, and the Republicans have made clear that their one and only goal 
is to get Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. In fact, just last 
week, Mitch McConnell told a group of conservatives: ``Don't get 
rattled by all of this. We're going to plow right through it.''
  Plow right through it? Really?
  Americans are tired of the powerful plowing right through everyone 
else to get what they want. There is a reason that so many women and 
men have come out in droves to support Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez. It is 
because people are tired of being ignored and silenced.
  Judge Kavanaugh and his Republican sponsors don't want to talk about 
the facts in this case. But let's talk about a few other facts. Over 80 
percent of women and 40 percent of men have experienced sexual 
harassment or assault; 7 out of 10 sexual assaults are committed by 
someone the victim knows.
  The vast majority of sexual assaults--about two out of three--are 
never reported to the police. Why? Because survivors fear retaliation 
or they believe that the police will not or can't do anything to help 
or they think it is a personal matter or they confide in someone other 
than the police or they believe it is not serious enough to report or 
they don't want to get the perpetrator in trouble.
  Last week, as Dr. Ford testified before Congress, the National Sexual 
Assault Hotline saw a 147-percent increase in calls from people seeking 
help. We have a problem of sexual harassment and sexual violence in 
America. The problem isn't that too many victims are coming forward 
with fabricated stories to destroy someone's life; it is that too many 
survivors are afraid to come forward at all.
  They believe they will not be heard or taken seriously or they think 
more about the impact on the perpetrator than their own safety and 
well-being or they think that people with power--the ones who can 
actually do something--will instead ``plow right through'' them.
  We never hear the stories of millions of sexual assault survivors. 
But some make the very difficult and very personal decision to come 
forward and tell their stories. They, like all survivors, are 
courageous, and they deserve to be heard and treated with respect--not 
dismissed, not attacked, not threatened.
  The record, the process, the allegations--whichever way you slice 
this--should lead to only one result: Members of this Chamber should 
vote no on Judge Kavanaugh. Our country deserves better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, first let me begin by saying this: I 
believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
  Her raw courage in coming forward will change the national culture 
and discussion. She has given voice to millions of women and men who 
are survivors of sexual assault, who are afraid to tell their stories, 
who felt powerless. Some of these women have contacted my office with 
their own stories. I have read them and they are heart-wrenching.
  At its core, sexual assault is a crime of power. Dr. Ford has 
confronted some of the most powerful in our Nation and told the truth. 
I thank her for her courage in coming forward and for empowering other 
survivors to do the same.
  At this point, with so much unknown, there are serious consequences 
to elevating Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
  We the Senate need to continue our search for the truth about this 
nominee, his background, and his record, and, hopefully, we can do that 
in a bipartisan way.
  Yet everything about the nomination process for this nominee has been 
deeply flawed, from the President's outsourcing the nomination to the 
Federalist Society, to the majority leader's violating his own new rule 
to delay consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until after an 
upcoming election, to a highly partisan lawyer's screening Judge 
Kavanaugh's documents for public disclosure instead of the nonpartisan 
National Archives staff, to the Judiciary chair's rush to hearings, 
even though only 7 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record is in the public 
domain.
  What are they trying to hide? I think we have a pretty good idea.
  Finally, and most disturbing, are the President's and the majority's 
inexcusable treatment of the brave women who have come forward with 
allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee. The 
Republican leaders claim to want to hear the allegations of sexual 
assault has been nothing but a cynical show for public consumption.
  The #MeToo movement forced them to open the floor to Dr. Ford, but 
her testimony was never really going to matter to President Trump and 
the Republican leadership. The majority leader made that clear when he 
bragged to an audience of the religious right before her hearing: ``In 
the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme 
Court.''
  Republican leaders questioned why the allegations did not come 
forward sooner. Yet the reasons survivors of sexual assault often don't 
come forward are well documented and well understood, and they did 
everything they could to undermine getting to the truth of Dr. Ford's 
allegations--from refusing to honor her request for an FBI 
investigation prior to her hearing to severely limiting the Democrats' 
time for questions of Judge Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, to refusing to call other key witnesses, like Mark Judge, 
Deborah Ramirez, and others, and to put them under oath. It is 
absolutely stunning that all 11 Republicans on the committee abdicated 
their responsibilities and ducked public scrutiny by bringing in a 
female prosecutor to do their job and question Dr. Ford. It is just 
plain political cowardice, and women in New Mexico and around the 
country are watching.
  Again, after hearing her testimony and reviewing the record, I 
believe Dr. Ford. It is worth noting that no Republican Senator has 
said she is not credible. Not a single one has said she is not 
credible. The majority whip stated: ``I found no reason to find her not 
credible.''
  The President found her testimony ``very compelling'' and that she 
was a ``very credible witness.'' Although, true to form, the President 
changed political course and insulted and mocked her in front of a 
laughing crowd and television cameras--yet another shameful new low for 
the President's treatment of women.
  Dr. Ford's testimony was all the more compelling because she was able 
to expertly explain how the memory of the assault was seared in her 
hippocampus by neurotransmitters that were released in response to the 
attack. Her memory of her assailant is fully intact. It insults Dr. 
Ford and survivors generally to say, like Republicans have, that they 
believe something happened to her but that it was not Brett Kavanaugh.
  Dr. Ford is not mixed up, and contrary to what the Republicans would 
tell you, there is strong corroborating evidence behind her 
allegations. Years before this nomination, she had told her husband, a 
therapist, and friends of the attack, and her polygraph examination 
supports her truthfulness. Her story even matches an entry in Judge 
Kavanaugh's calendar in a number of ways, identifying the attendees she 
would have no reason to know.

[[Page S6525]]

  There is a narrow window in which it is possible that both Dr. Ford 
and Judge Kavanaugh are telling the truth, and that is if Judge 
Kavanaugh does not remember it as a result of his consumption of 
alcohol that evening. Yet Judge Kavanaugh's performance during the 
supplemental hearing, while loud and angry, was not convincing. You 
can't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible and, at the same time, push to 
put Judge Kavanaugh on the Court.
  The burden of proof for a lifetime appointment to our highest Court 
is not ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The Senate and the American 
people must have a high degree of certainty that there was no sexual 
assault and that the nominee didn't lie about it under oath. We have no 
certainty on either count.
  The supplemental hearing brought Judge Kavanaugh's overall 
credibility even further into question. While he denied reports of 
heavy alcohol use during high school and college, there are abundant 
reports in the press and statements from many eyewitnesses to the 
contrary. Numerous acquaintances, even friends, have come forward with 
information that he often drank to excess during these years. His own 
yearbook quotes allude to--brag about--heavy drinking and exploits with 
girls. With all of these accounts of heavy drinking from an array of 
different credible sources who have nothing to gain by coming forward, 
it is hard to believe there is no truth to them.
  Evidence of excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior as a 
teenager and young adult is not disqualifying in and of itself, but 
misleading Congress and the American people about it is. Most troubling 
is that there was already evidence before us that Judge Kavanaugh was 
not being fully truthful.
  We know that when Judge Kavanaugh worked as a White House lawyer 
under George W. Bush, Senate Republican Judiciary staff stole 
confidential information from Democratic Senators and staff and gave 
some of that stolen information to him. Under oath, Judge Kavanaugh 
denied that he knew the information was stolen, but if you read the 
email correspondence, it is nearly impossible to believe a 
sophisticated political operative, like Brett Kavanaugh was, would not 
have understood that the information had been obtained surreptitiously.

  There are also valid concerns that Judge Kavanaugh, during his 2004 
confirmation hearing, misrepresented his involvement with the George W. 
Bush torture policy and with certain judicial nominations he handled as 
White House Counsel. His sworn testimony in 2004 and in the two recent 
hearings leaves me highly skeptical that Judge Kavanaugh has told the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth before Congress. I cannot support 
a nominee to the Supreme Court without there being a high degree of 
certainty that he or she has been 100-percent honest under oath. The 
integrity and reputation of the Supreme Court demand nothing less.
  The rushed Judiciary hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh was 
designed to appease and not to make sure the American people had all of 
the facts. Senator Flake was right to stop the process and call for an 
FBI investigation. He is right that this nomination is tearing the 
country apart. The American people needed to know the truth. All 
relevant evidence should have been gathered and put before us. Senator 
Flake is a friend, and I commend him for having stood up for what he 
thought was right, but an artificially limited FBI investigation will 
do nothing to bring this country back together. Justice could have only 
been served by having a full investigation, with the FBI being allowed 
to have done its job as it knows how to do it.
  With the results in of the FBI investigation, it is clear that the 
President, with the Senate leadership in full support, imposed 
arbitrary limits on the scope and length of the investigation. Dr. Ford 
was not spoken to. Her corroborating witnesses were not contacted. Her 
corroborating documents were not reviewed. There was no meaningful 
inquiry as to whether Judge Kavanaugh misrepresented his past alcohol 
use, which also corroborates Dr. Ford's story. Up to 40 witnesses tried 
to come forward, but FBI agents did not contact or interview them. 
While we can all read their statements in the newspapers, their 
information will not form part of the FBI's investigation record.
  There was no bipartisan briefing at which Senators could ask FBI 
leaders about the adequacy of the investigation. The FBI's 
investigation was not allowed to be a real investigation. Given what is 
in the public record but was kept away from the FBI, it by no means 
exonerates Judge Kavanaugh. Without having had a real investigation, 
the cloud of credible allegations remains. The President and Republican 
leaders were, simply, not on a search for the truth, only on a mad dash 
to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed at any cost to the country.
  Folks, it is 2018. We are 27 years beyond Clarence Thomas' hearings. 
Yet credible claims of sexual assault against a nominee to the Supreme 
Court are not taken seriously by the President of the United States or 
by the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The roughshod process 
orchestrated by the Senate majority and the President delegitimizes the 
claims of a woman who has been subject to sexual harassment and sexual 
assault, and it only serves to drive survivors underground. The 
kangaroo court-type process orchestrated by the Senate majority and the 
President delegitimizes the Supreme Court and will for decades to come.
  During the supplemental hearing, Judge Kavanaugh showed himself as 
partisan, belligerent, even paranoid, and lacking in judicial 
temperament. He rudely shot back at Senators, asking them about their 
drinking habits. He accused Members of the minority of misdeeds for 
which he had no evidence. He blamed ``revenge'' by the Clintons for the 
predicament he was in. He lacked self-control, dignity, and the 
temperament of a Supreme Court Justice. His partisanship and lack of 
political independence were on full display.
  I have never seen a nominee to a Federal court, let alone the Supreme 
Court, behave in such an injudicious manner before the Senate. Under 
pressure, Judge Kavanaugh did not show himself worthy to appointment to 
the highest Court.
  This is not a partisan conspiracy as Judge Kavanaugh claimed. We saw 
no such allegations for Judge Gorsuch's nomination--a judicial 
candidate who shared a similar judicial philosophy to Judge Kavanaugh's 
and who, coincidentally, went to the same high school. There were no 
unsavory allegations against Judge Scalia or Judge Alito--two judges 
whom most Democrats vociferously opposed based on their rightwing, pro-
dark money ideology.
  Elevation to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is not a 
right. It is a privilege. While the Republicans take great umbrage that 
Judge Kavanaugh's reputation is at stake, the fact is we have before us 
credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and 
justice demands that he be called to answer to those allegations. He 
should not get a pass.
  I have reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's decisions, writings, speeches, all 
of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the meager 
set of documents made available when he served as a White House lawyer 
and as part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. On 
the merits, this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial 
thought. He is on the extreme edge. The American people want a Justice 
whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a 
Justice who is not on the far end of the ideological spectrum and who 
will not put his or her personal beliefs before the text of the statute 
or the constitutional provision at issue.
  Even before the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, the 
American people opposed this nomination in unprecedented numbers. I, 
like the American people, have no confidence that this nominee will 
uphold our rights of privacy, a woman's right to choose, and each 
individual's right to marry whomever he or she wants. I have no 
confidence that this nominee will uphold Americans' rights to 
healthcare, consumers' rights to a fair deal, or laws that protect our 
environment and combat climate change.
  I have no confidence that this nominee will protect minorities' 
rights and the rights of Native peoples, in particular, or will uphold 
voting rights, will strike down gerrymandered voting districts, which 
undermine the principle of ``one person, one vote,'' or will

[[Page S6526]]

rein in dark money, which erodes our democracy, all while the Nation 
faces the distinct possibility that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 
investigation will find evidence that the President or his campaign 
conspired with Russia to undermine the 2016 Presidential election, 
evidence that the President obstructed the Special Counsel's 
investigation, or evidence of other crimes. I have absolutely no 
confidence that this nomination will hold the President to account if 
called to do so.

  Judge Kavanaugh is on record saying that, as a matter of policy, he 
believes a sitting President should be immune from criminal 
investigation while in office, no matter the crime. He has refused to 
tell the Senate and the American people whether he believes that, as a 
matter of constitutional law, a sitting President may be investigated 
and indicted.
  I, for one, believe that under the Constitution, if a President 
commits a crime, the rule of law still stands and that the Constitution 
gives no immunity to a President who is a criminal.
  This nomination will shape the course of the Supreme Court--and 
American law and lives--for decades. We must have a nominee who has 
been fully vetted, who does not stand credibly accused of sexual 
assault, whose honesty before the Senate and the American people cannot 
be questioned, whose judicial record fits within mainstream 
jurisprudence, and who believes that no one--not even the President--is 
above the law.
  Judge Kavanaugh is not that nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this is the first time I have had the 
opportunity to address my colleagues on the Senate floor since I was 
appointed to fill the seat of our late friend and colleague John 
McCain.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of great 
importance, both to this body and to the people of the United States of 
America; namely, the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Associate 
Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I would like to address this in five general areas, beginning with a 
couple of preliminary areas of discussion.
  The first concerns my work right after I came to the Senate in 1995 
to try to adopt a constitutional amendment for the victims of crimes. 
We called it a crime victims' rights amendment. I had become acutely 
aware of the problems crime victims faced, especially those who have 
suffered some kind of sexual assault. Through personal interviews and 
discussions with victims, victims' rights groups, with prosecutors and 
others, with research and a great deal of reading and hearing from 
victims' groups, law enforcement, and others, I became convinced that 
the only way we could guarantee the rights of these victims and bring 
justice to them would be through the adoption of the constitutional 
amendment doing so.
  I worked with Senator Dianne Feinstein. The two of us joined together 
in this effort, and we spent countless hours and many months trying to 
persuade our colleagues that this was the way to proceed.
  Eventually, we were able to get legislation through the Senate, which 
established a Federal law rather than a constitutional amendment. This 
Federal law--which is now embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3771--has provided some 
support to victims of Federal crime and, as importantly, a template for 
States to develop their own statutes and constitutional amendments to 
provide rights to victims.
  As a result of all of this, I am well aware of the issues like the 
delay or nonreporting of assaults by crime victims, and I very much 
appreciate the need to be lenient in evaluating the testimony of such 
victims.
  Rights, like the need to attend proceedings and to address the court 
at the time of sentencing and to be notified of these rights, were 
included in the statute we got adopted. Those rights are now part of a 
majority of the States in the Union, either in statute or the 
Constitution.
  The recognition of the rightful role of victims in our criminal 
justice system cannot only help provide courage and closure to victims 
of sexual assault, it thereby also helps prosecutors gain critical 
testimony for their cases so that more of the perpetrators could be 
brought to justice.
  There are some insensitive people who are not aware of the 
difficulties faced by victims of sexual abuse, and you have heard some 
of them speak publicly. What is not true is that all men are ignorant 
of the problem.
  Senator Feinstein and I met many men in the victims' rights movement 
who are extraordinarily helpful and understanding. I don't ask anyone 
to establish their bona fides to speak to any of these issues, and I 
would hope none would question mine.
  To the second point, some have asked me about my time in helping 
Judge Kavanaugh as a so-called sherpa. This was part of the early 
process of his confirmation process, where he was interviewed by a 
majority of the Senators and tried to answer their questions and to 
also respond to requests for information and the like.
  Just before his nomination was announced by the President, Don 
McGahn, the White House Counsel, called me in Arizona and asked if I 
would serve as the sherpa for the nominee--a person to get him around 
the Senate, introduce him to the Senators, follow up on any questions, 
and so on. I agreed to do that, and I also participated in some of the 
hearing preparation. This all occurred in about a 5-week period of 
time.
  During this time, I was employed part time at a Washington, DC, law 
firm. I want to be clear that my assistance to Judge Kavanaugh was on 
my own time, free of charge, and in no way connected to the firm or any 
client of the firm. It was not a pro bono matter because I actually 
didn't represent Judge Kavanaugh. It was simply to help him prepare for 
his hearing and to get him around the Senate to meet the Senators and 
to talk to them.
  After about 5 weeks of this, roughly, I was appointed by Arizona's 
Governor to Senator McCain's seat in the Senate, and I immediately 
resigned from the firm and all other remunerative positions and ceased 
working with Judge Kavanaugh. I should also mention that during this 
time, I performed no lobbying work for my law firm or for any clients 
of the firm, and I so notified the Secretary of the Senate and the 
Clerk of the House.
  Finally, at no time during my work with Judge Kavanaugh did any 
allegation of sexual impropriety arise. The Ford allegation came after, 
and nothing like that was discussed in my presence during my work with 
him.

  As I said, some have asked me questions about this. I hope that 
satisfies their inquiries.
  I also want to conclude this part of the presentation by saying that 
having sat through over 50 interviews, hearing the questions asked of 
him and his responses--many of them repetitious--and helping him to 
prepare for his hearing, I really believe I have a very good idea of 
how he would conduct himself as an Associate Justice on the U.S. 
Supreme Court. After all, that is the most important question before 
us.
  The third area of inquiry gets to Judge Kavanaugh as Justice 
Kavanaugh. The first thing to do is to examine his qualifications and 
his experience. Ordinarily, this is where we begin in our inquiry to 
provide advice and consent to the President after a person has been 
nominated.
  He is a graduate of Yale Law School, had clerkships on both the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court under Justice 
Kennedy. He has been described as ``wicked smart'' and extraordinarily 
hard-working. He went over this on numerous occasions, discussing his 
early service on the Court of Appeals, where he wanted to emulate Judge 
Merrick Garland, whom he had heard something about.
  Merrick Garland is a prodigious worker by reputation, and Judge 
Kavanaugh saw that and tried his best to follow in Judge Garland's 
footsteps in that regard.
  He has had a huge output in cases. I believe he has 312 written 
opinions over his 12 years on the bench. In addition to that, outside 
of the court, he wrote law review articles, speeches, and gave many 
presentations to groups. He also lectures at the Harvard Law School.
  Regarding his previous experience, it also includes, as we know, 
previous experience on the executive branch, both as a lawyer and as an 
assistant to the President. All of this, by the way, he

[[Page S6527]]

was required to undergo six separate FBI checks.
  His qualifications have been reviewed by the American Bar 
Association, which is just one entity that looks at judicial nominees 
and is generally deemed to be an organization that studies records. It 
goes into depth interviewing people, and they concluded he had the top 
rating, ``well qualified,'' to serve on the Supreme Court.
  As some have described, he is a judge's judge. He is a real standout 
on the bench. People would have been surprised if he were not someday 
nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  He has also been recommended by law professors, students, former 
clerks, and hundreds of people who have written letters on his behalf. 
I note that many of these are liberals or Democrats. They are not 
necessarily conservatives or Republicans. He is well regarded by 
virtually everyone who has had connection with him either in his 
professional or as a member of the Bench.
  The next question we go to in evaluating a nominee to a court is 
their judicial philosophy--how do they approach the job of judging? How 
will they decide cases?
  I first want to say what Judge Kavanaugh is not, and he made this 
crystal clear in the many meetings in which I sat with him talking with 
the Senators. He is not a results-oriented judge. When parties come 
before the court, he doesn't decide whom he wants to win and then 
figure out a way to help that party win the case. That is not the right 
way to evaluate a case before the court, and he is not that kind of 
judge.
  He is a judge who wants to apply the law in the right way and to 
reach the decision the law requires based upon precedent, based upon 
the way the Constitution or--if appropriate--statutes are to be 
interpreted in order to reach the right result in the case.
  One of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee I think got us off on 
the wrong foot or tried to get us off on the wrong foot in this regard. 
He came to one of the hearings with a presentation on how many times 
Judge Kavanaugh allegedly ruled for corporations over individuals and 
concluded this was an important factor in determining whether Judge 
Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court. I think this illustrates the 
mindset of many: Whom did you rule for, rather than how did you rule in 
the case? This is totally wrong, and it is irrelevant to the way judges 
should decide cases.
  Theoretically, if 10 plaintiffs bring 10 spurious lawsuits against 10 
different corporations and the courts rule for the corporations in 
those cases, it proves exactly nothing. That is why we shouldn't focus 
on who wins the cases but rather on whether they were decided based 
upon proper legal principles, on precedent, and on the way courts are 
supposed to approach cases--on facts and the law.
  In the meetings that I sat in on, Judge Kavanaugh went to great pains 
to describe how he approaches a case. He begins by looking at the text 
of the Constitution for any relevant statutes. He begins applying the 
law, as judges are supposed to do, in interpreting those constitutional 
provisions and statutes. In the process of doing this, he uses the same 
principles other judges do. In just a moment, I will mention what some 
of those principles are.
  I mentioned the fact that some of my colleagues have focused on whom 
he has ruled for in cases. Bear in mind that as a member of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals, he sits with two other judges, so the three judges 
decide the cases, not just one--although, a case can be decided by a 2-
to-1 vote. Some of my colleagues have said, well, they are concerned 
that because he served in an administration for a President and because 
of something he once wrote for a law review article, they fear he would 
want to rule for the President and against other parties if a lawsuit 
involved the question of Executive power--how much authority does the 
President of the United States enjoy. I think that is wrong, based upon 
his explanation of all of his decisions and what he has written on the 
subject. I think it is very clear that he has no predilections in this 
regard, and that he believes strongly in the separation of powers as 
set forth in the U.S. Constitution; he holds no special place for the 
President above the other two branches of government.

  One of the cases he cites to demonstrate this fact is a case that 
didn't please me, and the outcome certainly didn't please his old boss, 
President Bush, because he ruled against President Bush. Instead, he 
ruled for Osama bin Laden's assistant and driver. The reason he did 
that is that individual--as bad as he may be, as evil as he may be--was 
not accorded proper constitutional rights as guaranteed under our 
Constitution, and he had to reach the result he did because of that. As 
I said, I didn't like the outcome, and I am sure his previous boss, 
President Bush, didn't either. But it illustrates the fact that he is 
not going to blindly rule for the President, even in a case where the 
equities would seem to favor what the President was trying to do in 
this case; that is, to ensure that Osama bin Laden's colleagues were 
held to account for their misdeeds.
  So the bottom line here is that it is not who wins and loses that 
matters; it is whether the law is applied fairly and correctly.
  Now, how do we know whether it is correctly applied? Obviously, 
judges will differ sometimes, and each case is going to be decided on 
its own merits. The question of how one judges is really the key to 
this. I said I would get to this.
  Here is just a little bit of a discussion of how cases should be 
decided, how judges should approach these decisions, and how I believe 
Judge Kavanaugh will. It is based on legal rules and principles that 
have been long established and written up and followed by courts 
throughout the ages. The law is literally full of these rules--
basically, the ``how to'' for judges to decide difficult cases. Most 
judges know and apply these rules fairly and systematically. They don't 
try to make up new rules or deliberately fudge the facts or twist the 
rules in order to reach a desired result.
  I kind of liken it to the instructions that come with those dreaded 
packages that say ``some assembly required.'' That is always a sign 
that I need to get my wife involved rather than for me to do it myself 
because I don't follow directions very well. But failure to follow the 
steps in that case can lead to some pretty bad results, as a couple of 
lawn chairs I put together will attest to.
  The question here is, a judge should have a clear view of how he 
approaches each case, the steps that he follows to decide them. But 
sometimes cases provide ambiguities and difficult decisions that make 
it especially difficult to apply the usual rules. In these cases, the 
question is whether a judge will be tempted to guess what the right 
procedure is or to try to reach an outcome that he has predetermined he 
wants to reach, as opposed to applying other commonsense principles.
  It is true that sometimes laws are ambiguous, and they require some 
interpretation. I have seen Judge Kavanaugh address this precise 
question and go over decision after decision that he has made, showing 
how he approaches cases like this. I can tell you, first of all, he 
tries to get his colleagues to agree, if a reading of a statute is not 
really all that ambiguous, to say: Look, if you find my reading of the 
statute persuasive, then that should be it. We can end the inquiry. We 
don't have to find ambiguity in every single thing because when 
ambiguity is found, obviously, judges are not as tethered to the law as 
they would otherwise be. He is very aware of this, and he has tried 
very hard, I think, to reach the right conclusion based upon the proper 
application of the law.
  I am not going to go into all of those judicial rules; we have heard 
precedent and statutory interpretation and the like. But I will say 
that having heard him describe his approach to numerous cases, I am 
convinced that he will, as a Justice on the Supreme Court, apply the 
law in the same way that he has during his 12 years as a member of the 
court of appeals.
  He describes his approach to judging in a way that some have called 
strict construction or textualism, which I think is really not much 
more than giving a preference to the written text of either the 
Constitution in cases where constitutional interpretation is the 
question or statutes in cases where statutes have to be interpreted. 
This

[[Page S6528]]

approach to judging is the methodology that is used more and more today 
by judges, and it tries to avoid substituting the judge's notions of 
how things should come out and substituting the judge's discretion as 
opposed to carefully reading the text of the Constitution or the 
statute as either the Founding Fathers or the Congress, in the case of 
a statute, has written it.
  As I said, during his many interviews and hearing him explain his 
approach, I believe he has given us a very good idea as to how he would 
approach cases in the future. As I said, while there are one or two 
areas that some of my colleagues have raised questions about, I have no 
doubt at all that he is an extraordinarily knowledgeable and very wise 
judge who will do what he is supposed to do on the Supreme Court to 
apply the law fairly and correctly.
  I also believe something else. I believe that he is going to work 
very hard to find consensus on the Court. We all hear about 5-to-4 
decisions, and they don't make us feel good because it illustrates how 
judges can differ, and sometimes it demonstrates an ideological 
division on the Court, which we would hope to avoid. He would like to 
work with his colleagues to try to come to more consensus decisions 
than to have these kinds of split decisions. He really loves the law, 
and you know that when you talk to him, and he is really committed to 
making it work.
  Another critical factor for a judge--and we frequently refer to it, 
as it has been referred to on the floor here--is what we call judicial 
temperament. This is especially important in district court judges 
where they appear before juries and where trials are actually held. You 
want the jurors in the case to understand the case well, to feel good 
about being there as jurors judging their fellow citizens, so judicial 
temperament is very important for the judges in those cases. But even 
on the court of appeals, one must have a judicial temperament that 
demonstrates to the parties and to the litigants that the judge is 
fair, that demonstrates to the lawyers involved that he can be 
respectful of them and fair to all of them, and that he can be 
congenial with his fellow judges on the court with whom he has to work 
every day and decide these cases.
  Until the second hearing for Judge Kavanaugh, following Professor 
Ford's testimony, I don't believe anybody really questioned Judge 
Kavanaugh's judicial temperament. His 12 years on the Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia revealed a very careful and courteous and 
engaged judge--fair to the parties, reasonable to the lawyers, and 
collegial to his colleagues. It was only when responding to the attacks 
on his character that he even showed much emotion. I believe that most 
honest observers would allow him some slack for that in view of the 
nature of the allegations against him.

  Much like the need to show some lenience in evaluating the testimony 
of a victim of sexual assault, I think we can appreciate the role of 
emotion in his testimony. He apologized to the one Senator to whom he 
was rude. In my view, the best evidence of his temperament as a judge 
is his temperament as a judge for the last 12 years.
  So as to judicial temperament, knowledge of the law, an approach to 
deciding cases, I believe few would doubt his qualifications to sit on 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  That brings us to the fourth part of my presentation: the allegations 
of sexual misconduct against him. Do they amount to something that 
should disqualify him for serving on the Supreme Court? I don't think I 
need to detail here every allegation and every witness statement that 
has been involved in the investigation of these allegations.
  In the recent hearing at which both Professor Ford and Judge 
Kavanaugh testified, I believe most observers saw both as presenting 
credible testimony, and I agree with that. That their recollections 
differ does not necessarily mean that either of them knowingly lied. We 
should neither automatically believe one over the other--she, because 
her testimony was that she had been sexually abused, nor he, because he 
is a sitting Federal judge. As I said, each deserve some deference for 
the reasons that I have stated. But, if both are believable, we must 
still find a way to analyze the evidence to help us reach a conclusion 
on the issue before us: Should Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed?
  Well, the best way to verify the allegations is through 
corroboration--evidence that backs up the accusations that have been 
made. While both Professor Ford and Deborah Ramirez have named 
individuals who they believe were present during the incidents of which 
they complained, none of those individuals would corroborate the 
accusations. Some denied them; others had no recollection of such 
incidents. Some said, even so, they believe Judge Kavanaugh; at least 
one says the same as to Professor Ford. There does not appear to be any 
corroborative evidence.
  Professor Ford's telling of her story later to others is not 
corroboration, but it does go to her credibility. That she did not 
report her incident earlier is not dispositive. Victims in similar 
situations frequently do not report for a number of reasons. The fact 
that her very good friend, allegedly at the party in question, and the 
only other girl present, according to Professor Ford, did not become 
aware of the accusations that night, does raise some questions. And 
that particular witness, despite her obvious friendship with Professor 
Ford, has continued to insist that she has no recollection of the party 
in question or of Brett Kavanaugh.
  I have either read all of the FBI notes or have had them read to me, 
and I have been briefed by the committee staff on all of the FBI and 
committee contacts. This includes the second round of FBI interviews. 
Contrary to what some have said, this process was not constrained. The 
FBI was not told not to interview certain people; they were, in fact, 
told to follow the leads, and I believe that they interviewed not just 
4 witnesses but a total of 10 witnesses in this latest round of their 
interviews.
  After reading what I have read and being briefed on the remainder by 
committee staff, I find nothing to verify the accusations against Judge 
Kavanaugh. He has unequivocally denied them, and having gotten to know 
him as I have, I conclude that he is not the proper subject of the 
accusations.
  Some have suggested that he must prove that he did not engage in the 
conduct alleged. It would be totally unfair to place upon him the 
burden of proving a negative. This is ordinarily impossible. When you 
neither know the time nor place of the event alleged, you can't 
disprove that you were there then--there, wherever it was--or then, 
whenever that was. In this particular case, for example, unless he can 
somehow show that he was in Europe the entire 3 months of the summer 
allegedly involved here or in some similar circumstance, there is no 
way that he could prove a negative; namely, that he wasn't there.
  It is true that the presumption of innocence applies in our courts, 
but the same notion of fair play applies in other aspects of our civic 
and social life. If a mere allegation of wrongdoing is enough to deny 
an applicant a job or otherwise discredit an individual for the rest of 
that person's life, our society would be torn apart. This is why we 
have Constitutional rights, which embody our notions of fair play in 
life generally.
  While this is not really a job interview as it has been described, 
even if it were and we were the prospective employers, we would want to 
evaluate the qualifications--in this case of Judge Kavanaugh--including 
accusations of against him, and those accusations would not just be 
taken at face value, particularly as serious as they are and given the 
fact that he has unequivocally denied them.
  So I conclude that, under all of the circumstances, including the 
nature of the evidence brought forward and how that evidence would be 
proven to us, including how he has lived his adult life, and after 
seven FBI investigations now, it is more probable than not that the 
accusations against him are not true and therefore disqualifying for 
his nomination.
  That brings me to the fifth and final point of my discussion: 
lifelong considerations of suitability to serve.
  I noted the qualifications for judges, their judicial temperament, 
the way they approach judging cases, their record of writing opinions, 
what they have said and how they have said it--that is the first thing 
we look at, but

[[Page S6529]]

we also look at the whole person, and that is an appropriate thing to 
do. So let's look at Judge Kavanaugh's whole person.
  First of all, I would like to note some things that I think are not 
relevant to his competence to serve on the Supreme Court but which we 
have heard a lot about. Not relevant are Judge Bork, Justice Thomas, 
Judge Garland, or arguments about who started the unseemly process we 
are in now.
  By the way, let me just as an aside here note that in one of the 
interviews with a Senator, the interview started as follows: Judge 
Kavanaugh, glad you came in today, but I can tell you that this is 
going to be very, very hard because of what happened to Judge Garland. 
Well, you can have your views as to whether Judge Garland was treated 
fairly or not, but that should have no bearing on the qualifications of 
Judge Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Other not relevant things are comments from the President of the 
United States, including unfair comments about Professor Ford. Also not 
relevant is the outcome of this debate on elections or on President 
Trump's future. Nor is this about punishing Judge Kavanaugh because 
some crime victims have not previously received justice. The most 
recent claim here now is about process. I think his qualifications 
having been well established, now they are claiming that the process is 
lacking and is not fair. Obviously, what this is not about is whether 
the FBI was allowed to do its work, as I believe it was.
  The vote we will be casting tomorrow should not be a surrogate for 
some other agenda; it should be simply our judgment of Judge 
Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, our advice on and 
potential consent to his nomination by the President.
  As I said, having been with him in interviews, the majority of my 
colleagues have otherwise gotten to know him. Having witnessed and 
learned of the esteem in which he is held by colleagues, former law 
clerks, students, and professional friends, and being aware of his 
contributions to his community, his country, his church, and his 
family, I conclude that he is imminently qualified to serve on the 
Supreme Court and will serve the Nation well in the position of 
Associate Justice.
  As I said, the best evidence of how he would perform as a Justice is 
how he has performed over the dozen years he has been a judge on the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I urge my 
colleagues to focus on the question at hand, and I urge them to support 
Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, tomorrow we will cast a very important 
vote on whether to end debate on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to 
be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Should he be confirmed to this position of awesome responsibility, 
Judge Kavanaugh would be just one of nine people with the power to 
change the American Government and the American way of life for at 
least a generation. He would be hearing and deciding cases that touch 
all facets of our lives, including the healthcare we receive when the 
Texas case involving the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate makes 
its way to the Supreme Court. This particular case is very important 
because if Texas wins, that means the ACA's protections for those with 
preexisting conditions--one out of four people in this country--would 
be done away with.
  The Supreme Court will also probably get a lot of immigration cases 
and many cases about DACA, sanctuary sites, temporary protective 
status, and family separation that are pending in the lower courts, and 
also abortion, as courts weigh the burden imposed on a woman's right to 
choose by laws limiting abortion in States like Texas, Iowa, and 
Louisiana. It doesn't really matter? Of course it matters whether Roe 
v. Wade is overturned, but even if Roe v. Wade is not overturned, with 
Judge Kavanaugh's record, all of these limiting laws by States that I 
just talked about will probably be supported by him, and at some point, 
the right to an abortion that we have under Roe v. Wade will be pretty 
much a nullity.
  The Supreme Court will also be faced with cases that will address the 
right of workers to bargain collectively with their employers, as 
litigation comes up to the High Court in the wake of the Janus 
decision, and many other important topics, including voting rights, 
gerrymandering, the census, race-conscious college admissions, and 
environmental laws.
  The Supreme Court's decisions touch every aspect of American life. 
With so much at stake, the Senate has an obligation to closely 
scrutinize every nominee to the Supreme Court. We need to know that 
they have the qualifications for the job. Do they have the proper 
education? Do they have the necessary breadth of experience? Will they 
treat everyone in the Court--including Court employees, law clerks, and 
lawyers--with an even temperament? Can they keep their cool under 
pressure and make reasoned decisions when the stakes are high? Can they 
listen to the facts and apply the law without fear or favor, or will 
they let the experiences they bring with them override objective 
judgment? Will they insert their personal preferences where they don't 
belong? We need to know if they can rule fairly. Will they give every 
litigant who comes before the Court a fair hearing? Will they 
acknowledge and put aside their biases, inherent and otherwise? These 
last two considerations are especially important because the Trump 
administration outsourced the vetting of Supreme Court nominees to the 
Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. These ultra-rightwing 
groups have spent decades supporting people like Brett Kavanaugh and 
their ideological, outcome-driven jurisprudence.

  After months of scrutinizing Judge Kavanaugh's record and evaluating 
his performance before the Judiciary Committee in two hearings, it is 
clear that the answer to most of these questions is no. His judicial 
record is deeply ideological and outcome-driven, he remains a fierce 
political partisan operative, and he holds troubling legal views on 
Native Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives.
  These patterns were clear based on the weeks I spent reviewing Judge 
Kavanaugh's writings, his judicial decisions, and the small fraction of 
his records made available from his time as a key White House aide to 
President George W. Bush. I became even more certain of my decision to 
oppose his nomination after his first hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee and after reading the mostly dismissive non-answers he gave 
to our followup written questions.
  There are plenty of substantive reasons to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's 
nomination, and I will continue speaking out about many of these 
reasons in the coming days, but over the past 2\1/2\ weeks, we have 
learned new information that underscored my concern that Brett 
Kavanaugh lacks the character, candor, credibility, and temperament to 
serve on the Supreme Court.
  Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Dr. 
Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh about Dr. Ford's account of 
an attack on her by the nominee and a friend when they were all 
teenagers. Dr. Ford conducted herself with grace and courage, 
recounting the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on 
her life.
  In his testimony, Judge Kavanaugh dropped the polite veneer he 
presented at his first hearing, during which he complimented all the 
Senators he had met with and told the committee that ``[t]he Supreme 
Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.'' That was then, 
but last Thursday, he launched into a partisan political screed that 
contradicted everything he has ever professed to believe about the way 
judges should behave. He 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.''
  I have to say, sitting there listening to him be so totally partisan 
was bizarre. What he said was bizarre. He was angry, he was 
belligerent, he was partisan, he went on the attack, and he argued with 
Senators. He forgot who was

[[Page S6530]]

there to ask the questions and who was there to answer them. These are 
not qualities to look for in a Supreme Court Justice.
  More than 1,700 law professors across the country agree, including 
Dean Avi Soifer and 6 other professors from the University of Hawaii 
and 21 professors from Georgetown University Law Center, both my alma 
maters. I want to quote what a law professor said:

       We have differing views about the other qualifications of 
     Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and 
     scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge 
     Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial 
     temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our 
     land.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter 
from the law professors be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, October 3, 2018]

            Opinion--The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh

       The following letter will be presented to the United States 
     Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are 
     received.
       Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities 
     of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a 
     judge requires ``a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, 
     impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, 
     not a result.'' The concern for judicial temperament dates 
     back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled ``Judges as 
     Guardians of the Constitution,'' Alexander Hamilton expressed 
     the need for ``the integrity and moderation of the 
     judiciary.''
       We are law professors who teach, research and write about 
     the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear 
     in state and federal court, and our work means that we will 
     continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme 
     Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our 
     Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on 
     Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial 
     temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and 
     certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.
       The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But 
     Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious 
     inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for 
     accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with 
     questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh 
     described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as ``a 
     calculated and orchestrated political hit,'' rather than 
     acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new 
     information, to try to understand what had transpired. 
     Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the 
     allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an 
     intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he 
     interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.
       As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, 
     judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived 
     as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a 
     judge or justice ``shall disqualify himself in any proceeding 
     in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' 
     These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to 
     the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone 
     of the courts.
       We have differing views about the other qualifications of 
     Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and 
     scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did 
     not display the impartiality and judicial temperament 
     requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

  Ms. HIRONO. Judge Kavanaugh also tried to convince us that while he 
``liked beer,'' he was basically a choir boy--interested in nothing 
more than sports, school, and service projects. This carefully painted 
image has been directly contradicted by Judge Kavanaugh's own words in 
his yearbook and by many of his high school and college classmates over 
the past weeks.
  These inconsistencies and contradictions were part of the reason I 
joined many of my colleagues in calling for a full FBI investigation of 
allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. I wanted the FBI to examine 
inconsistencies and contradictions between his testimony and that of 
others who knew him in high school, college, and beyond.
  Last Friday, Senators Flake and Coons brokered an agreement to hold 
off on a floor vote for at least a week while a supplemental background 
investigation could be completed to look into these allegations. But I 
was disappointed that as the days went by, it became more and more 
clear that the White House rigged the investigation. The President 
claimed to want the FBI to do a comprehensive investigation, but that 
did not happen.
  Our ranking member, Senator Feinstein, wrote to White House Counsel 
Don McGahn and FBI Director Christopher Wray the day after the 
investigation began to request a copy of the written directive sent by 
the White House to the FBI. She got no response. The following day, 
many other members of the committee also wrote to Mr. McGahn and 
Director Wray about the supplemental investigation.
  In addition to repeating the ranking member's request for an 
explanation of the scope of the investigation, we also asked that it be 
comprehensive. We wanted all serious allegations against the nominee to 
be investigated. Of course, we would expect, in a comprehensive 
investigation, that all appropriate witnesses would be questioned. We 
asked that the FBI ``perform all logical steps related to these 
allegations, including interviewing other individuals who might have 
relevant information and gathering evidence related to the truthfulness 
of statements made in relation to these allegations.'' We got no 
response.
  Just yesterday, I joined a letter with many of my committee 
colleagues asking Chairman Grassley to prevent public 
mischaracterization or selective leaks of the results of the FBI's 
previous work. We urged him to ``call for a full Senate briefing by the 
FBI . . . so that all Senators hear the same information and have the 
same opportunity to question the FBI before any floor vote on the 
Kavanaugh nomination.'' These are requests having to do with the most 
recent FBI investigation. We asked for a meeting between the chairman 
and the minority members ``to establish bipartisan ground rules for 
public discussion of the information provided by the FBI'' and this 
most recent, totally truncated and inadequate investigation--those last 
were my words--but both requests were rejected.
  I had hoped the FBI would exhaust all possible avenues of 
investigation relevant to whether Judge Kavanaugh had a pattern of 
drinking that resulted in aggression and belligerence toward women. I 
had hoped they would follow leads given to them by Dr. Ford and Ms. 
Ramirez. I had hoped they would be permitted by the White House to do 
the job we know they can do--the job former Director James Comey said 
they could do. Instead, as we now know, they were only allowed to do 
the bare minimum.
  As we know from news reports, there are dozens of people with 
relevant information, some of whom say they have corroborating 
evidence, who need to be interviewed, but they were not.
  It is simply impossible, after seeing the results of the FBI's 
supplemental work--and I hesitate to call it an investigation--that 
anybody could think it was in any way, shape, or form the comprehensive 
investigation the President promised. This so-called investigation is a 
sham. It is a fig leaf for the Republicans to hide behind. It is a 
talking point for their continued and predictable criticism of 
Democrats. They will say: See? You wanted an FBI investigation, and you 
got one. But now it isn't good enough for you.
  Who are they kidding? This is a sham investigation. This so-called 
investigation wasn't good enough for me, and it shouldn't be good 
enough to satisfy the American people. Judge Kavanaugh has a burden--
not a burden of proof like in a court but the burden to show us he has 
not just the credentials for the job but the temperament and the 
character necessary for this lifetime appointment.
  I have said many times that Democrats didn't need to manufacture 
reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court. 
Based on his record, his opinions and his dissents, his academic 
writings and speeches, I had concluded before these new reports came 
forward that he would not be fair and objective on the Supreme Court. 
His views on reproductive rights, Native rights, legal protections for 
workers, consumers, and the environment are all of deep concern to me, 
not to mention his expansive views on Executive power, including 
protecting a sitting President from criminal or civil proceedings.
  Now that we have heard Dr. Ford's account and seen Judge Kavanaugh's 
angry and combative reaction, it is evident that he should not serve on 
and should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court for a lifetime, 
decades of making decisions that will impact our

[[Page S6531]]

lives on all of these areas on which he has a very troubling record. We 
can do better, and the American people deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join in opposition 
to Judge Kavanaugh and call on my colleagues to join me in voting 
against this mad dash to jam through a lifetime appointment to the 
Supreme Court.
  Last week, Democrats and Republicans stood together to ask Republican 
leaders to allow the bare minimum--an FBI investigation into the new 
allegations that have come in. This wasn't an unreasonable request. It 
happens all the time with nominees and for far less important positions 
than a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. It is the very least that 
should be done when serious allegations like these remain, to make sure 
we are hearing from all relevant witnesses and bringing all relevant 
information in for consideration, but this simply has not happened.
  This morning, I went in for a briefing on the new FBI investigation, 
and it was very clear to anyone who reviewed the material that Senate 
Republican leaders and President Trump cut the FBI off and refused to 
allow them to conduct the comprehensive and thorough investigation that 
was promised to Democrats and Republicans.
  Instead, this was rigged from the start to protect Judge Kavanaugh 
because here is what we know, and this has been reported in the press: 
Dr. Ford was not interviewed despite her repeated requests. We know 
Judge Kavanaugh was not questioned. We have heard from so many other 
witnesses who were desperate to talk to the FBI--desperate--because 
they had relevant information they wanted to share in confidence. As 
far as we know, they were never even contacted, and now Senators had to 
line up to read a single copy of a limited FBI report over the course 
of today. We are not allowed to share what we saw or take notes out of 
the room, and we are not permitted to ask the FBI agents who actually 
conducted the investigation any questions.
  Although I am not permitted to share what I heard and read in the 
briefing, I can say absolutely nothing I saw makes me believe Dr. Ford 
any less, and, in fact, based on what I saw, I am even more concerned 
about the veracity of some of what we heard from Judge Kavanaugh.
  Even more important than anything we saw was how much we were not 
able to see because the investigation was limited. Once again, the 
voices of women and their experiences have been silenced and pushed 
aside.
  So the questions everyone should be asking right now are, What are 
Republican leaders so afraid the FBI would find if they were allowed to 
take the full week to truly conduct a thorough investigation and talk 
to all of the relevant witnesses? What are they trying to hide, and why 
will they not allow this to be done right when we are talking about a 
nomination to the highest Court in the land?
  So I come to the floor to make three points to urge my colleagues to 
vote no and stop this mad dash to a rushed confirmation.
  First, I am going to talk about what we know about the serious and 
credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh by Dr. Ford and others; 
second, I am going to run through, once again, the serious credibility 
problems that have been raised regarding Judge Kavanaugh; and finally, 
I will highlight, once again, the real temperament concerns so many of 
us have based on what we saw from Judge Kavanaugh at the last hearing.
  First and foremost, I believe Dr. Ford. She has absolutely no reason 
to lie, and she had no interest in making this public before she was 
compelled to, citing her civic duty. We all saw her at the hearing, and 
like so many people across the country, I was riveted, and I watched 
with tears in my eyes. Dr. Ford was so brave and compelling. She was so 
real. The memories she recounted were heartbreaking; the fear she felt 
when she was being attacked; the relief she felt when she finally made 
it out of the house; the laughter between Brett Kavanaugh and Mark 
Judge she will never forget; the fact that she is 100 percent sure it 
was Brett Kavanaugh who attacked her.
  Millions of people watched her, and so many women and survivors were 
inspired by her bravery. Dr. Ford made a credible allegation of a 
serious offense that needs to be taken seriously.
  We have also heard from other women--Ms. Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick--with 
their own experiences to share. They should be listened to. They should 
be heard. We should presume they are telling the truth, and Republican 
leaders should allow a full investigation into their allegations 
because, in the end, despite what some Republicans tried to claim, this 
is not a trial. We are not supposed to weigh evidence and make judgment 
about innocence or guilt. Our job as Senators is to weigh what we know, 
weigh what we hear, weigh what we learn, and use our own judgment to 
determine whether a nominee deserves a promotion to the highest Court 
in the land. Based on everything I know about the allegations made 
against Judge Kavanaugh, he should not be confirmed, and he should not 
be in a position to make decisions on the Supreme Court that impact 
women and families and the future of our country, which takes me to my 
second point: Judge Kavanaugh's serious credibility issues.
  I went through this in some detail on the floor yesterday. I will not 
go through all of it again, but time and again, in his initial hearing 
and then even further in his second hearing, Judge Kavanaugh made it 
clear he has serious issues with the truth.
  He testified under oath directly to Senators and made claims that 
simply defy belief on issues big and small. Again and again, he made 
claims that were contradicted either through emails that were uncovered 
or from others who felt compelled to come forward after hearing what he 
said that simply did not align with what they knew to be true.
  If we can't trust what he has said to us on those issues, if we know 
some of what he said is simply false, how can we trust him on so many 
other issues? Surely, the least we can expect from someone nominated to 
serve on our Nation's highest Court has a basic commitment to honesty 
and truth, especially while under oath. This shouldn't be a partisan 
issue. It is just common sense, which brings me to the third point I 
want to make.

  Like so many people watching last week's hearing, I was shocked by 
Judge Kavanaugh's raw anger, his rage, disrespect, sense of 
entitlement, and sneering condescension; from his apparent bafflement 
that he even had to respond to credible allegations against him to his 
attempt to throw questions back at Senators, asking them instead of 
actually answering them himself, to his open partisanship, his 
bitterness, to his rage and anger, and so much more.
  I cannot imagine any Senator seeing what we saw in that hearing, 
watching a nominee make a display like that and thinking this person is 
fit to serve as an impartial judge on our Nation's highest Court.
  I know President Trump loved Judge Kavanaugh's performance. It seemed 
to inspire him to move from calling Dr. Ford a credible witness to 
openly mocking and attacking her, and it sounds like it has galvanized 
him to fight even harder for the man whose anger and defensiveness he 
clearly identifies so closely with.
  I thought it was truly awful. It was not the kind of temperament we 
should want on the Supreme Court, and I can only hope enough of our 
colleagues agree.
  Once again, I believe Dr. Ford, and, to me, Judge Kavanaugh has shown 
so clearly he does not have the temperament or credibility to serve on 
the Supreme Court, but for any of my colleagues who may not be 
persuaded and have bravely stood up to ask for more information and a 
thorough investigation and for all of us who believe the Senate should 
do its job and get this right, we can't rush this to a finish line.

[[Page S6532]]

  A truly thorough investigation must be completed, as promised, so 
Senators hear from all the relevant witnesses and gather all the 
relevant information before we cast a vote on this confirmation. It can 
be done quickly, but it has to be done right because if this does end 
up being jammed through, as apparently currently Republican leaders 
intend to do, it will completely undermine the public's trust and the 
credibility of the Supreme Court as information continues to come out 
from investigations that will continue whether or not he is confirmed. 
It will eliminate any remaining trust people have in Senate Republican 
leaders to allow us to fulfill our constitutional advice and consent 
role and not just be a rubberstamp for the President, and it will cause 
tremendous anger and backlash across the country from those who are 
shocked to see the voices of women and survivors ignored like this.
  I ran for the Senate after I saw what happened to Anita Hill in 1991. 
Based on everything I am seeing and hearing across the country, all the 
anger and energy and focus, I am confident that if women and their 
voices are attacked, undermined, and disrespected once again, we are 
going to see a wave of anger and frustration and activism that makes 
1992 look like a ripple. We still have time to do this right. We still 
have time to do better than the Senate did in 1991. We still have time 
to restore the public's faith that women will be listened to.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, vote no tomorrow, and end this mad 
dash to confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened that the words I am 
about to deliver even need to be said in the first place, but I have to 
ask: How can we possibly continue to move forward or, as in the 
majority leader's own words, ``plow right through'' to confirm a 
lifetime appointment on our Nation's Supreme Court in the wake of both 
credible allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against the nominee 
Brett Kavanaugh and serious questions concerning his judicial 
temperament?
  Republicans are ignoring very real questions about his credibility 
and are intent on hiding his record. Even worse, they are in such a 
rush that most of them did not even want the FBI to reopen Judge 
Kavanaugh's background check to help us get to the bottom of this, and 
when the FBI did reopen the investigation, the White House limited its 
scope so much it did not follow multiple credible leads.
  Now we as Senators have barely 24 hours to review their findings 
before scrambling to a vote.
  As the whole Nation watches, what message is the U.S. Senate sending 
to our children, to women, to victims of sexual assault about the 
values we stand for? Do they not matter? Is this the society that we 
want our sons and daughters to grow up in? We all know full well the 
weight of who fills this deciding vote on our Nation's highest Court.

  Whomever we confirm as our next Supreme Court Justice will decide 
major cases that shape the daily lives of Americans for decades to 
come, but this is not a time for simply thinking about the judicial 
philosophies that we believe should shape opinions on the bench. I have 
made it clear that I oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination based on the 
substance of his views and the broken process being used to rush this 
nomination through the Senate on a partisan basis.
  From the very start, Republicans have pushed this nomination through 
at a breakneck pace, hiding from the public Judge Kavanaugh's record 
and the dangerous consequences of his extreme views on many important 
issues. That willful blindness, the absence of a thorough vetting 
process, and the mad dash to hastily confirm their nominee at all costs 
before this fall's election has led us to the crisis that we face 
today.
  This has now become an even more fundamental test of how seriously we 
as Senators take our duty of advice and consent on enormously 
consequential Presidential appointments.
  Multiple women have come forward publicly to accuse Brett Kavanaugh 
of sexual misconduct. While we will never be able to adjudicate these 
allegations in the same way as a criminal proceeding, we have an 
obligation to weigh these accusations carefully and seriously as we 
consider Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.
  I, for one, after reviewing all of the information that we have and 
after listening to the testimony last week before the Judiciary 
Committee, have to say clearly and forcefully that I believe Dr. Ford. 
When a victim of sexual assault comes forward to make a harrowing 
allegation like this, it takes tremendous courage, and it shouldn't be 
dismissed. Under incredible duress and at a great personal cost, Dr. 
Ford came forward to share the painful details of how Brett Kavanaugh 
assaulted her while she was in high school. I don't know how anyone 
watching her testimony could question her sincerity or the seriousness 
of her experience, but some Republicans seem to be following President 
Trump's lead here and are choosing to jeer and dismiss Dr. Ford rather 
than take her testimony seriously. As I have said before, all of the 
sexual assault allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh deserve a 
thorough professional investigation by the FBI before proceeding with 
any vote on his nomination to the highest Court in the land.
  I was relieved to see my colleague Senator Flake of Arizona speak up 
and call for a delay to seek a more thorough FBI investigation. 
Unfortunately, once again, the rush to get a predetermined outcome has 
undermined the integrity of the process.
  Dr. Ford told us that she was absolutely willing to participate in an 
FBI investigation to get to the bottom of Judge Kavanaugh's alleged 
assault, but according to her, she was not even interviewed by the FBI 
as part of this reopened investigation. The FBI did interview another 
accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who has alleged that Judge Kavanaugh exposed 
himself to her during her freshman year at Yale. However, dozens of 
others sought to bring evidence forward and the FBI ignored their 
willingness to offer testimony. Again, key witnesses, including Judge 
Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, were not even interviewed by the FBI. The FBI 
was so constrained by the White House in this matter that I would not 
call this an investigation.
  This is unjust. This sends a harrowing message to women and girls all 
around the Nation who have been victims of sexual violence. We must not 
toss aside a fair and impartial process in favor of a hurried political 
endgame. Before we take one of the most consequential votes that any of 
us will ever take, shouldn't we want to get to the bottom of this?
  Even beyond what we could learn from a real investigation, there is 
already reason to doubt Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and his candor.
  Despite the fact that the White House tried to limit the scope of the 
FBI's work so drastically that I wouldn't characterize it as an 
investigation, the FBI's report still manages to raise very serious 
questions about Judge Kavanaugh's truthfulness. During his confirmation 
process, Judge Kavanaugh began by misleading the Senate on small 
things. He misled the Senate on consequential questions about his time 
in the Bush White House. Last week, when faced with serious questions 
about the sexual assault allegations and questions about his character, 
Judge Kavanaugh dodged, dismissed and ranted. He was not able to refute 
the serious accusations leveled against him, and neither did the FBI 
report. Based on what we have heard since from people who knew him at 
the time, there is substantial reason to believe that he was not being 
truthful about his conduct.
  If Dr. Ford's testimony is the truth--and I believe it is--then Judge 
Kavanaugh should be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court.
  Once again, I fully acknowledge the stakes of this nomination. I 
understand how much my Republican colleagues want to appoint someone 
they agree with on important issues that may come before this Court, 
but we cannot--we should not--rush to confirm a man to a lifetime 
appointment to the highest Court in the land under such a dark cloud of 
credible allegations--not

[[Page S6533]]

to such a critical seat at such a critical time.
  Last week's hearing should have been the beginning of looking into 
this serious allegation, not the end. If there is nothing to hide and 
if there is information that would exonerate Judge Kavanaugh from the 
accusations that have been leveled against him, then a real indepth 
investigation would help us reach those conclusions. Instead, 
Republicans continue to rush this process and press forward with a 
predetermined set of conclusions. It makes one wonder if my Republican 
colleagues actually want to know the truth.
  We cannot allow these allegations to be swept under the rug. The 
message that would send to victims of sexual assault and abuse would be 
devastating. It would effectively state to them that even if they come 
forward, there will be no justice; that they will be ignored or, worse 
yet, mocked, in the case of the President. All people regardless of 
gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic background should have the same 
right to live free from domestic and sexual violence.
  I am truly stunned that we are moving forward with this confirmation 
vote. If we can't pause to make sure we get this right, the institution 
of the Supreme Court will lose the public's faith as an embodiment of 
justice. So I will ask one more time: What are we doing here? Can we 
not do better than this?
  I think we must. The integrity of the highest Court in the land hangs 
in the balance. What we stand for as a nation hangs in the balance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.