[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 166 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6679-S6697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal Lord God, who rules the raging of the sea, our thoughts are 
not Your thoughts and our ways are not Your ways. As the Heavens are 
higher than the Earth, so are Your thoughts

[[Page S6680]]

higher than our thoughts and Your ways higher than our ways.
  We thank You for those who know that this is not the time for summer 
soldiers and sunshine patriots. Today, help our lawmakers approach 
their decisions with confidence by claiming Your promise in James 1:5-
6. In that promise, You said to people of faith, ``If you need wisdom, 
if you want to know what God wants you to do, ask him and He will 
gladly tell you. He will not resent your asking. But when you ask, be 
sure that you really expect him to answer.''
  Lord, may this great promise illuminate the path of those who realize 
that you are the only constituent they absolutely must please.
  We pray in the Name of Him who is the truth. Amen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, like so many of us here, I have been 
watching and listening to my colleagues speak on the floor about the 
Judge Kavanaugh nomination for several days.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I want to commend Senator Collins of 
Maine for her thorough, detailed, and eloquent remarks yesterday. 
Sometimes a Member gives a speech that we know will always be 
remembered because of its thoroughness, its seriousness, its 
thoughtfulness, and statesmanlike quality. I think we all are in 
agreement that that happened yesterday with Senator Collins. I also 
want to highlight the remarks of my very good friend Senator Murkowski 
last night. While we voted differently yesterday and we will most 
likely do so again in a few hours, she made some important points, 
particularly regarding some of the issues surrounding this confirmation 
process as it relates to our great State of Alaska. I very much 
appreciate her friendship, and, like so many, I know this process has 
been difficult for her, and she talked about that last night. In fact, 
for millions of Americans and, no doubt, for thousands of Alaskans, the 
process to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court has 
been a searing one--certainly for Judge Kavanaugh and his family and 
for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her family, and for this Senate 
family, it has been a difficult period. It has also evoked very 
traumatic memories of experiences that far too many women in Alaska and 
America have had--far too many. I am hopeful that in the aftermath of 
all this, we can go through a much needed period of healing.

  As you know, the advise and consent responsibility of the Senate is a 
solemn one, one of the most important responsibilities we have here. 
The process I went through in order to cast my vote for Judge Kavanaugh 
has been extensive and thorough and, I believe, fair, which is what I 
believe my constituents back home in Alaska demand of me.
  After the President announced Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, I read 
hundreds of pages of decisions that he authored. I listened to the 
views of Alaskans and continued to do so up until yesterday, those who 
we were in favor, those who opposed.
  In my first meeting several weeks ago with Judge Kavanaugh, we 
discussed at length and in great depth his viewpoint on a variety of 
national and Alaska-focused legal issues.
  Now that wasn't the first time I had met Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, I 
had known him back when we served together in the Bush Administration. 
I knew him as an honest and dedicated public servant, and I actually 
followed his career as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The lengthy meeting in my office convinced me that he is someone who 
will interpret the law and the Constitution as written. He understands 
the importance of separation of powers and federalism and holds a 
healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of Federal agency, and 
he is a strong protector of the Second Amendment. These are all issues 
that are very important to my constituents and that they care deeply 
about, which is why I focused on these issues in my discussions with 
Judge Kavanaugh in my office several weeks ago. I was convinced then 
and remain so that he is well qualified to be a Justice on the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  As we all know, after a number of these meetings--several weeks, in 
my case, after meeting with Judge Kavanaugh--two issues arose that I 
took very seriously. The first was a claim that, if confirmed, Judge 
Kavanaugh would not fully recognize or respect the rights of Alaskan 
Native people and the U.S. Government's trust responsibilities to them. 
This is very important to constituents of mine. The Alaska Federation 
of Natives, a very important group back home in Alaska that represents 
the Native people of my great State, wrote a memo speculating how Judge 
Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would threaten unique laws and programs for 
the Alaskan Native people.
  The second issue that arose, of course, which we have been debating 
here and the country is fully aware of, was the allegation that Judge 
Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford in 1982 when she was 15 and he 
was 17. Like many Senators, I put my heart and soul investigating such 
claims, particularly given how important both of these issues were to 
my constituents, and I want to address each of these in turn.
  The memo of the Alaska Federation of Natives, or AFN, as we call it 
back home, was focused on concerns stemming from an amicus brief 
written by Judge Kavanaugh 18 years ago, when he was a private 
attorney, in a case dealing with indigenous Hawaiians before the 
Supreme Court called Rice v. Cayetano, in which the U.S. Supreme Court 
in a 7-to-2 opinion essentially agreed with Judge Kavanaugh's position.
  Alaska Natives make up roughly 20 percent of my State. They are 
incredible Americans--patriotic, hard-working, a beautiful culture--and 
their legal and sovereign rights, which are based on the U.S. 
Constitution and Federal statutes, have been extremely hard-fought, 
including in this body, over decades. Such rights are fundamental to 
the health and well-being of Alaska Natives in my State.
  After the AFN legal memo and similar letters and op-eds were 
published back home, in Alaska, I sent them to the White House for 
Judge Kavanaugh's review. I then spoke directly to him about these 
issues. He reiterated to me in a thoughtful and thorough discussion 
that the legal rights of Alaska Natives, to include Tribes and regional 
and village corporations, are very clear and well established in the 
law, which is actually different from the situation of indigenous 
Hawaiians. Therefore, the views expressed by the Supreme Court in the 
Cayetano opinion, which limit the rights of Native Hawaiians, do not 
extend to Alaska Natives and are not applicable legally in any way in 
Alaska. This is because Congress has repeatedly and explicitly 
recognized the rights and the Tribal status for Alaska Natives, 
including the Federal Government's trust responsibility, while, 
unfortunately, in my view, Congress has not done the same for Native 
Hawaiians.
  Senator Murkowski was on the floor last night. I am going to talk a 
little bit about that, but I think the Alaska delegation has always 
tried to be supportive of the Hawaiian Nation in this regard, and we 
continue to be, but, legally, they are very different.
  In response to a question for the record to Judge Kavanaugh released 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh unequivocally 
endorsed this point. He stated--this is his language:

       The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the 
     ability to fulfill its treaty obligations with Native Alaskan 
     Regional and Village Corporations and American Indian 
     Tribes through legislation specifically addressed to their 
     concerns. Unlike indigenous peoples of Hawaii, Congress 
     has explicitly recognized in statute that ``Indian Tribe'' 
     includes any recognized Indian or Alaska Native tribe, 
     band nation, pueblo, village or community. . . . Native 
     Alaskans are Indian Tribes and therefore enjoy all the 
     relevant rights and benefits that come in their trust 
     relationship with the United States.

  In my conversations with Judge Kavanaugh about Alaska Native legal 
issues, he also reiterated a point emphasized by Chief Justice Roberts 
in the recent Supreme Court case called the Sturgeon case that because 
of Federal statutes like the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress has 
repeatedly made clear that Alaska is different in many

[[Page S6681]]

ways from the lower 48, and he recognized and told me as part of this 
confirmation process that many legal issues involving my State need to 
be viewed through that lens.
  To be perfectly clear, if I believed or saw evidence that Judge 
Kavanaugh's views were somehow opposed to or hostile to Alaska 
Natives--a very important population of my State that happens to 
include my wife and my three daughters and my mother-in-law--I would 
not support his confirmation. I told Judge Kavanaugh this directly, but 
that I was also satisfied with his response after we had this 
discussion--a deep, detailed discussion about these issues.
  Importantly, Senator Murkowski came to the same conclusion in her 
discussions with Judge Kavanaugh and she said as much in her remarks 
last night.
  Of course, there is another allegation, a claim that I want to talk 
about this afternoon--the allegation that has been the focus of much 
attention here in the Senate regarding sexual assault, which I likewise 
took extremely seriously.
  I respect very much Dr. Ford's bravery and sincerity in coming 
forward to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee. I am convinced 
that she went through a traumatic experience that has left deep wounds. 
I also applaud the bravery of the men and women who have called and 
written and visited my office to share their experiences in this 
regard. So much of this has been very painful for so many to revisit 
these episodes.
  As I repeatedly stated, any allegation--all allegations--of this kind 
of conduct should be seriously looked at. So I undertook the due 
diligence that my constituents expect of me and that is required in the 
Senate's important advise and consent role. I watched the Senate 
Judiciary hearing on this issue gavel to gavel. I read every piece of 
information available, including all of the interviews conducted under 
the penalty of perjury by the Senate Judiciary Committee investigators. 
I read text messages, threads, witness statements, letters between the 
Committee and lawyers who have been involved, and confidential 
committee documents. I supported and read the professional and thorough 
supplemental FBI report recently submitted to the Senate which looked 
deeper into this allegation and spoke to additional witnesses in 
relation to it. Most importantly, I met with and heard from hundreds of 
Alaskans who have suffered from sexual abuse and domestic violence. 
Many flew thousands of miles--most on a moment's notice--to come to my 
office to meet with me and Senator Murkowski. I applaud their bravery 
and their passion. So much of this process has been painful for them.
  Alaska is an amazing State. I come down to the floor all the time to 
talk about its majesty and beauty and our wonderful people, and I 
believe that in my soul. But one area where we are not so great or 
wonderful or majestic is this. My State has the highest rates of sexual 
assault and domestic violence in the country, by far, in almost every 
category. It is a horrible, horrible thing, and it impacts so many 
families in the Last Frontier, horribly.
  Throughout my public career in Alaska, I have worked to combat sexual 
assault and domestic violence by putting more offenders in jail, 
bringing more resources to survivors, including much needed legal 
services, and raising awareness of this heinous problem by working to 
change the culture of violence, which is too pervasive in my State. We 
have a lot more work to do on this issue in Alaska and across America, 
including on our college campuses, and I applaud Senator Gillibrand for 
her leadership in this area and many other Senators as well.
  The allegations by Dr. Ford have been difficult and wrenching here in 
the Senate to address. One thing is clear to me. Her allegations had 
been taken seriously, as they should have been.
  Mr. President, I have a summary from the Judiciary Committee on its 
investigation into these and other allegations that I would ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Summary of Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation

                        (as of October 4, 2018)


                               Background

       The Senate Judiciary Committee has engaged in a thorough 
     and robust investigation of allegations raised against Judge 
     Kavanaugh. Throughout the last month, Committee staff members 
     have collected statements, letters, and calls from 
     individuals around the country. The reports range from 
     substantive allegations of sexual misconduct, to short 
     messages to senators passing along internet rumors and 
     theories.
       Committee staff continue to work tirelessly to pursue any 
     and all substantive leads. In the course of the continuing 
     investigation, staff members have spoken with 35 individuals, 
     a task that requires extensive work during nights and 
     weekends. More than 20 Committee staffers have contributed to 
     the investigative efforts. The Committee has not received any 
     evidence that would corroborate the claims made by Dr. Ford, 
     Ms. Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick, or anybody else.


                        Allegations and Subjects

     Ford Allegations
       In response to Dr. Ford's allegations, Committee staff 
     repeatedly requested an opportunity to interview Dr. Ford, 
     but her lawyers repeatedly refused. Committee staff offered 
     to fly to California or any other location to interview Dr. 
     Ford. But as Dr. Ford explained at her hearing, she was not 
     clear that this offer had been made.
       The Committee thus reopened the hearing on Judge 
     Kavanaugh's nomination.
       During the additional hearing day (Day 5), the Committee 
     solicited more than 8 total hours of public testimony under 
     oath from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
       In connection with the hearing, the Committee collected 24 
     pages of evidence from Dr. Ford in two productions. The 
     Committee also received Judge Kavanaugh's calendars.
       The Committee also received a statement, submitted under 
     penalty of felony, from Dr. Ford's ex-boyfriend, who cast 
     serious doubt on the credibility of some of Dr. Ford's 
     testimony before the Committee.
       Notably, he stated that he had not known her to have any 
     fear of flying or related claustrophobia and that she had 
     previously provided advice to someone on how to successfully 
     take a polygraph, directly contradicting her hearing 
     testimony.
       Despite repeated requests by the Chairman, Dr. Ford still 
     has not supplied several key items, including the charts from 
     her polygraph examination, any recording of her polygraph 
     examination, and the therapy notes that she claimed 
     corroborated her story. Dr. Ford has not provided these 
     therapy notes to the Committee, even though she shared these 
     same notes with the media.
       In addition to conducting the hearing, the Committee 
     obtained statements from the three individuals who Dr. Ford 
     identified as being present at the 1982 gathering: PJ Smyth, 
     Leland Ingham Keyser, and Mark Judge (who submitted two 
     statements).
       Each person denied having any knowledge of the alleged 
     gathering. Ms. Keyser stated that she does not even know 
     Judge Kavanaugh and does not recall ever meeting him. And Mr. 
     Smyth and Mr. Judge each said they had never witnessed Judge 
     Kavanaugh engage in conduct of the kind described by Dr. 
     Ford.
       The Committee contacted a total of 15 former classmates of 
     Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. The Committee also received 
     several statements, signed under penalty of felony, that 
     support Judge Kavanaugh's explanation of terms in his high 
     school yearbook.
       Finally, prior to Day 5 of the hearing, the Committee staff 
     conducted a transcribed telephone interview with Judge 
     Kavanaugh regarding Dr. Ford's allegations. The Minority 
     staff refused to attend.
     Ramirez Allegations
       In response to the allegations from Ms. Ramirez, the 
     Committee contacted Ms. Ramirez's counsel 7 times seeking 
     evidence to support the claims made in The New Yorker. Ms. 
     Ramirez produced nothing in response. Ms. Ramirez's counsel 
     refused the Committee's request for an interview. Committee 
     staff nevertheless pursued the investigation. Staff 
     interviewed 5 witnesses with relevant information. Committee 
     staff also investigated the public statements of 3 other 
     individuals and found they had no knowledge of the alleged 
     event.
       Prior to Day 5 of the hearing, Committee staff conducted a 
     transcribed telephone interview with Judge Kavanaugh, subject 
     to penalty of felony. He denied Ms. Ramirez's allegations. 
     Minority staff attended the interview under protest and 
     refused to participate.
     Swetnick Allegations
       In response to allegations by Ms. Swetnick, the Committee 
     requested evidence on 6 occasions from her. Ms. Swetnick 
     refused the Committee's request for an interview. Despite 
     this obstruction, Committee staff attempted to pursue the 
     investigation by interviewing 12 witnesses who claimed to 
     have relevant information. Committee staff obtained two sworn 
     statements from individuals with knowledge of Ms. Swetnick's 
     character and allegations.
       Prior to Day 5 of the hearing, Committee staff also 
     interviewed Judge Kavanaugh on these allegations on two 
     separate transcribed telephone interviews, subject to penalty 
     of felony--both before (when Ms. Ramirez's allegations were 
     also discussed) and after Ms. Swetnick was identified by 
     name.

[[Page S6682]]

     Judge Kavanaugh denied Ms. Swetnick's allegations, asserting 
     that he does not even know Ms. Swetnick. Minority staff 
     attended the interview under protest and refused to 
     participate.
     Anonymous Allegation from Colorado
       In response to an anonymous allegation claiming Judge 
     Kavanaugh pushed his girlfriend against a wall in a violent 
     and sexual manner in 1998, Committee staff obtained a sworn 
     statement from the woman dating Judge Kavanaugh at the time. 
     She unequivocally denied that this incident ever took place.
       Committee staff also questioned Judge Kavanaugh on these 
     allegations during a transcribed telephone interview, subject 
     to penalty of felony. Like his then-girlfriend, he denied 
     that the incident ever took place. Minority staff attended 
     but refused to participate in the interview.
     Allegations by Others
       The author of one allegation recanted in a public Tweet. 
     The Committee referred the individual to the FBI for possible 
     violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1001 (materially false 
     statements) and 1505 (obstruction of congressional-committee 
     proceedings). Committee staff questioned Judge Kavanaugh 
     about the allegation during a transcribed telephone 
     interview, subject to penalty of felony. He unequivocally 
     denied the allegation. Minority staff attended but refused to 
     participate in the interview.
       A second allegation was completely anonymous. Committee 
     staff questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the allegation during 
     a transcribed telephone interview, subject to penalty of 
     felony. He unequivocally denied the allegation. Minority 
     staff attended but refused to participate in the interview. A 
     woman has subsequently begun contacting Senate offices, 
     claiming to be the author of the anonymous letter. Even 
     though there are doubts about the authenticity of her claim, 
     Committee staff is investigating.


                               Conclusion

       The Committee's investigation, like the FBI supplemental 
     background investigation, has found that there is no 
     corroboration of the allegations made against Judge 
     Kavanaugh.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. This report shows a staff of over 20 members of the 
Judiciary Committee literally working around the clock for weeks on all 
leads--any lead that came in on these serious allegations. These 
investigators have the authority of the law. When people speak to them, 
if people speak to them and lie, they commit perjury. They spoke to 
more than 35 individuals, pursuing any and all substantive leads. This 
is in addition to the FBI report.
  I want to commend Chairman Grassley for this serious and diligent 
work in this regard and the work of the Committee. It wasn't 
highlighted a lot, but it is very serious work. A lot of it is detailed 
here.
  Two important points stand out from this work. First, the Committee 
has not obtained or received any evidence that would corroborate the 
claims made by Dr. Ford. They talked to and tried to pursue leads in so 
many different areas. Dr. Ford's allegations were investigated 
respectfully and thoroughly by this Senate Judiciary staff and the FBI. 
As I mentioned, she certainly had courage in coming forward. 
Nevertheless, these allegations were not corroborated.
  Four people Dr. Ford claims were present had no knowledge or memory 
of any such event, and the others the FBI asked about the alleged 
incident had no knowledge either. One of them was a lifelong friend of 
Dr. Ford's. Leland Kaiser said she didn't even know Judge Kavanaugh. As 
you know, all these statements were made under the penalty of perjury.
  Another important point from the Judiciary Committee summary--again, 
I would suggest people take a look at it given the seriousness of the 
allegations and the seriousness of the investigation--that has not been 
picked up on is that the minority staff of the committee, those 
representing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, refused to 
participate in most of these investigations, sometimes not attending 
any interviews at all, and when they did, they refused to ask 
questions. This is truly a mystery to me.
  One of the constant refrains and arguments--and I am saying it has 
been in good faith from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
which continues today--is the need for more investigations into the 
allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. They have been making that 
argument very regularly. Yet when you read what happened in the 
committee, they have refused to take part in almost any part of the 
intensive ongoing investigations from the Judiciary Committee staff 
investigators of which there are 20. They have been working on this 
diligently.
  I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, but it is my 
understanding that this is a very significant break from past 
bipartisan investigations that have almost always occurred on the 
Judiciary Committee for every other previous Supreme Court nominee, so 
I am not sure why this happened. Perhaps one of my colleagues can 
explain it, but it does make one wonder. Where does this leave us?
  As Alaska's former attorney general and now as a Senator, I strongly 
believe in ensuring perpetrators of sexual assault pay a very serious 
penalty. I oversaw prosecutors who put such criminals away for decades 
and even indicted an alleged rapist according to his DNA sequencing in 
order to hold the statute of limitations for such a crime when we 
couldn't physically locate the alleged perpetrator.
  I also believe in the presumption of innocence, the sacrosanct and 
fundamental American principle, whether in a criminal trial, a Senate 
committee hearing, or the court of public opinion.
  I am convinced due process should apply as much to the Senate's 
advice and consent responsibility as it should in a court of law. If we 
lose this basic concept of fairness, then we risk doing irreparable 
damage to the very foundation of our democracy and core conceptions of 
American justice and even liberty. We do not want a system of guilty 
until proven innocent in America. Such a principle can lead to 
incentivizing false accusations that do lasting damage, especially when 
coupled with breathless media reports that repeat verbatim such 
charges.
  Unfortunately, we have seen this phenomenon during this confirmation 
process. Now, I am not referring to the allegations of Dr. Ford, which 
were taken seriously, but in the aftermath of her allegations, some 
horrendous, and what appear to be patently false, claims were made 
against Judge Kavanaugh. Such false allegations do tremendous damage to 
the accused and his or her family, but just as bad, they also risk 
undermining the credibility of true victims and true survivors of 
sexual assault. This is something that has been overlooked, I believe, 
in these discussions.
  One of the most disheartening aspects of this confirmation process 
has been how some of my Senate colleagues and members of the media were 
so quick to publicly embrace some of the most outrageous and incredible 
claims made against Judge Kavanaugh, like, for example, he participated 
in the drugging and raping of women as a teenage boy. A senior Member 
of the Judiciary Committee referenced this sickening allegation in her 
opening statement in one of the hearings. The immediate damage to the 
accused and to his family by such a charge which reverberated across 
the Nation was obvious. Less obvious but perhaps more damaging--as so 
many are in the long run--is how such false claims undermine the 
ability of true victims and real survivors with real claims of sexual 
assault to get justice, to be believed.
  I certainly hope this is not one of the outcomes of this 
dysfunctional confirmation hearing process, but it underscores how and 
why the entire system of American justice and fairness can be 
undermined if we abandon the presumption of innocence.
  Finally, I again want to thank and applaud so many of the women in 
particular, including so many Alaskans, who flew to DC, who have spoken 
out about this nomination, and have shared stories about their very 
difficult experiences with assault. I know from being in meetings with 
them and hearing from them and listening and reading, that this process 
has brought fresh and painful and difficult memories for so many. I 
want them to know that from the bottom of my heart, I am committed more 
than ever to work on combating these horrible crimes in domestic 
violence and trying to change the culture in our Nation to one of 
respect.
  Indeed, if there is a silver lining to come out of this contentious 
confirmation process, it is that the awareness and commitment to do 
more to combat these horrible crimes has been heightened. I have heard 
this from many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the past 
few days--including Senators Murkowski, Collins, Harris, and

[[Page S6683]]

Klobuchar--and I am certainly committed to working with all of them to 
make this happen.
  At the same time, I do not agree with some of the comments made on 
the floor that a vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh is somehow condoning 
sexual assault or somehow not believing all survivors. As Senator 
Collins stated yesterday, nothing could be further from the truth. A 
bipartisan majority of Senators, men and women, are likely to vote for 
Judge Kavanaugh in a few hours. To mark all of them as somehow not 
caring about the broader issue of sexual assault in America is not only 
untrue and an affront to them but undermines the larger cause of 
working together to combat this issue.
  I do not believe this is a binary choice. This is not and should not 
be a Republican-versus-Democratic issue. This is actually an American 
epidemic, and, frankly, it should be viewed more as an American male 
issue. The men are the ones who are committing the vast majority of the 
abuse, and we need to work together in this body and across the country 
to be united to stop it.
  I will be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as the next Associate 
Justice on the Supreme Court, but on this broader topic that I have 
been discussing this afternoon, our country has a lot of healing and a 
lot of work to do. I am certainly ready to do my part in that regard 
with all of my Senate colleagues, Republican and Democratic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, article II, section 2 of the 
Constitution gives this body, the Senate, the responsibility to advise 
and consent on judicial appointments. It is an important check on 
executive power. We are invested with this special responsibility to 
ensure that individuals nominated by the President to be Supreme Court 
Justices will be people who will make decisions fairly and impartially, 
without favor and without bias. That is why Lady Justice wears a 
blindfold and holds a balance scale on which to weigh the merits of 
arguments and claims that come before her. The integrity of the Supreme 
Court requires that every person who comes before that Court has 
confidence that each Justice will fairly weigh the evidence and the 
arguments. Judge Kavanaugh does not meet that standard.
  I had that concern at the very beginning of this process, and I fear 
it more than ever today at the end of the process. Any remaining hope 
that Judge Kavanaugh could be trusted to be an impartial Justice or 
could be perceived to be an impartial Justice was shattered by his 
opening statement at his last hearing. In that statement, which he 
emphasized he wrote in his own words, Judge Kavanaugh launched into an 
ultra-partisan diatribe and into wild conspiracy theories. He suggested 
that Dr. Ford's compelling testimony about her sexual assault was 
somehow manufactured by Democrats as payback for his participation in 
the Starr investigation, as if Dr. Ford were an actor in a bitter 
partisan battle rather than a brave citizen who had come forward to 
tell her story.
  While Judge Kavanaugh attempted the other day to walk back his words 
in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, the damage he had done was 
irreversible. If he is confirmed, hundreds of people who go before the 
Supreme Court and the millions of Americans whose lives will be 
affected by his decisions will believe that Judge Kavanaugh has already 
put his hands on the scales of Justice before they have had their say 
in court.
  That is why hundreds of law professors, Jesuits, and personal friends 
withdrew their previous support for his nomination after his statement 
at that hearing. That is why the American Bar Association has called a 
meeting to reconsider its endorsement, and that is why former Justice 
John Paul Stevens took the extraordinary step of saying that Judge 
Kavanaugh was not fit to serve on the Supreme Court of the United 
States.
  It didn't have to be this way. The process was flawed from the start, 
and it got worse as time went on. It started when President Trump 
contracted out the process of picking a Supreme Court nominee to 
rightwing groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage 
Foundation. During his campaign, candidate Trump said he was going to 
pick Supreme Court nominees based not on who would be impartial, based 
not on who would be independent but based on who would do his bidding 
on certain issues. He had a number of litmus tests.
  For example, during the campaign, when talking about the Affordable 
Care Act, candidate Trump promised that, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, 
his nominee would ``do the right thing'' and get rid of the Affordable 
Care Act. The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation didn't 
need much coaxing, but they dutifully compiled lists of names of people 
to fit the bill. Judge Kavanaugh fit the bill, and he fit the bill 
according to his own former law clerks.
  One of his former law clerks wrote an article entitled ``Brett 
Kavanaugh Said ObamaCare was Unprecedented and Unlawful'' in order to 
assure people that Judge Kavanaugh would be the Justice Kavanaugh to 
undo the protections of the Affordable Care Act. Another one of Judge 
Kavanaugh's own law clerks said that no other contender on President 
Trump's list is on record so vigorously criticizing the Affordable Care 
Act. These are Judge Kavanaugh's law clerks.
  We all know that the case of Texas v. United States, which threatens 
to take away protections for millions of people with preexisting 
conditions, is currently making its way through our Federal courts as 
we gather here today. It was filed by a group of 20 Republican 
attorneys general. The Trump administration decided not to defend the 
current law and decided not to defend the Affordable Care Act, and he 
said to these Republican attorneys general to have at it--to get rid of 
the Affordable Care Act.
  We know that the Texas case is very likely to end up in the Supreme 
Court of the United States. In Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump has his 
man, according to Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks, to rule against the 
Affordable Care Act--in doing so, stripping millions of Americans from 
their protections for preexisting health conditions.
  On the issue of a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice, 
Candidate Trump promised he would appoint a Justice to take those 
rights away. Specifically, he said overturning Roe ``will happen 
automatically, in my opinion, because I am appointing pro-life justices 
on the court.'' Again, he found his man in Judge Kavanaugh, and we have 
Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks saying as much.
  In a July 3, 2018, National Review article, one of his former clerks 
wrote: ``No court-of-appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more 
consistent record of enforcing restrictions on abortion.''
  Now, at the confirmation hearing, we all heard Judge Kavanaugh say 
that Roe v. Wade was an important precedent, and he said to some 
Senators that it was settled law. We know from many Republican judicial 
nominees who have testified before the Senate about settled law that as 
soon as they have gotten on the Supreme Court, it has no longer been 
settled. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh, before he was a judge, said himself 
in a 2003 memo that came to light: ``I am not sure that all legal 
scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme 
Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent''--a 
clear indication of where Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning lies, especially 
in light of the testimony from his own law clerks.

  If you look at other parts of his record, you will find that Judge 
Kavanaugh consistently rules in favor of powerful special interests and 
against the public interest. He has sided with those who want to lift 
all of the restrictions on political campaign expenditures. In one 
opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that PACs are constitutionally entitled 
to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected 
office because it was ``implausible'' that contributions to independent 
groups could corrupt candidates.
  Those million-dollar expenditures on behalf of candidates have no 
impact on the thinking of those candidates once they are elected. This 
is according to Judge Kavanaugh and, of course, according to the 
Citizens United decision. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh has been

[[Page S6684]]

credited by one campaign finance expert as ``the man who created the 
super-PAC.''
  Judge Kavanaugh has gone further. He has even suggested that limits 
on direct contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. Back in 
March of 2002, in an email, he wrote: ``I have heard very few people 
say that the limits on contributions to candidates are 
unconstitutional, although I, for one, tend to think those limits have 
some constitutional problems.''
  We can see that if it is Justice Kavanaugh, not only will he double 
down on Citizens United, which says that corporations can spend 
unlimited amounts of money, including unlimited amounts of secret 
money, but he will question the constitutionality of putting limits not 
only on independent expenditures but on direct contributions to 
candidates.
  We know Judge Kavanaugh was also the pick for those who want 
corporate power to trump workers' rights, consumers' rights, and 
environmental protections. The day that Judge Kavanaugh was nominated 
for the Supreme Court, the White House circulated a letter to corporate 
leaders that touted the fact that he would protect their interests. The 
White House proudly noted that he had overruled Federal regulators 75 
times on cases involving clean air, consumer protections, net 
neutrality, and other issues.
  When it comes to workers' rights, Judge Kavanaugh has routinely sided 
with corporations that want to prevent workers from unionizing, even at 
President Trump's own hotel in Atlantic City, which at the time had 
admitted its refusal to bargain with workers in a 2012 case.
  When the card dealers across several hotels voted to unionize, Judge 
Kavanaugh and a panel of judges invalidated the will of the workers, 
overturned an administrative law judge's ruling that the union be 
certified, and allowed the Trump hotel to continue violating workers' 
rights.
  On environmental issues, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows that time and 
again, he favors polluters over clean water and clean air. With his 
confirmation, it will be much harder for Americans to seek redress in 
the courts, and it will be easier for polluters to continue to pollute 
the environment. As a circuit court judge, he has written 10 dissenting 
opinions in environmental cases, and in each one, he has argued against 
the side that sought to protect the public health and the environment.
  Judge Kavanaugh's sweeping view of executive power should cause alarm 
among every Member of this Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. We 
have all heard the testimony, and we have seen the writings. It appears 
to be no surprise that President Trump, who is watching that Mueller 
investigation get closer and closer to his doorstep, would want a judge 
who will give excessive deference to the executive branch--somebody who 
may be on the Supreme Court when that Court has to decide whether or 
not President Trump can be subpoenaed in that case or otherwise or be 
brought to justice in that case, if that is what the conclusions 
demand.
  It is clear on all of these issues that President Trump and the 
Republicans had their man in Judge Kavanaugh. They have someone they 
believe will overturn the Affordable Care Act, once again giving 
insurance companies a green light to discriminate against people with 
preexisting conditions.

  They think they have someone who will overturn Roe v. Wade or 
dramatically limit a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice; 
someone who will gut environmental regulations, undermine workers' 
rights, and consumer protections; someone who will give corporations 
the ability to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money in 
elections and who might even argue that the contribution limits to 
candidates are unconstitutional and can be limited; and, finally, 
someone the President believes will get him off the hook if the Mueller 
investigation gets too close to him.
  So here we had Republicans in this Senate and a President on the 
verge of getting someone they thought could do all of those things, and 
then something unexpected happened: The country learned about what 
happened to Dr. Ford.
  Our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that Dr. Ford did 
not want to come publicly to report her sexual assault. It was only 
when she found out that Judge Kavanaugh was on the second short list 
that was released that she became concerned. Even then, she didn't want 
to come forward publicly. But she thought it was her civic duty to let 
people know what had happened to her, so she reached out to her 
Representative in Congress on a confidential basis.
  The story did become public, and when it did, she felt dutybound to 
testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell Senators what 
happened to her on that awful day. We all know she had nothing to gain. 
She has been subjected to all sorts of awful death threats and other 
kinds of verbal abuse. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
  Our Republican Senators who listened to her testimony, for the most 
part, said that her testimony was both powerful and credible; we know 
she answered questions directly. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh's 
testimony was partisan, evasive, and, on many points, even under oath, 
untruthful.
  When the female prosecutor Republicans hired to ask questions for 
them could not discredit Dr. Ford's testimony, we saw many of our 
Republican colleagues launch into full partisan attack mode; no longer 
did the facts matter. They picked up on Judge Kavanaugh's opening 
statement about partisanship rather than seeking to get to the truth 
about what happened to Dr. Ford and others who have alleged sexual 
assault.
  What mattered was ramming through their nominee. The majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, said they would ``plow right through'' and, by God, 
nothing was going to stop them. They even scheduled the vote on Judge 
Kavanaugh before they had heard the testimony about sexual abuse and 
sexual assault from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
  It was only when Senator Flake recognized what a sham the process was 
that he at least forced the Republican leadership to do what they did 
not want to do and agree to a short FBI investigation into the 
allegations of Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez, but the goal never 
changed. The goal of ramming through the nomination never changed.
  That is why Senate Republicans and the White House dramatically 
limited the scope of the FBI investigation. They tied the hands of the 
FBI. They told the FBI whom they could interview. The investigation 
that was already going to be short at about a week was cut even shorter 
and was finished up in a matter of days.
  What is the result? The result is completely predictable. The result 
is we have lots of key witnesses who were not interviewed who say they 
have corroborating evidence to support the allegations of Dr. Ford and 
Deborah Ramirez. The country will continue to hear from these witnesses 
after today's vote.
  Because the investigation was orchestrated by the White House and the 
Senate Republican leadership, the FBI was not allowed to do its full 
job. It would have been better for all parties involved--and I mean all 
parties, including Judge Kavanaugh--to have had a thorough 
investigation where, at the end of the day, the public could have 
confidence that all of the available evidence could have been tracked 
down and reviewed. That would have been best for the integrity of the 
Court and the integrity of the Senate.
  We all know there is no requirement that we rush this confirmation. 
We all know that. After all, it was the Republican leader who kept a 
seat open on the Supreme Court for months and months and months after 
President Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland. So this notion 
that there is some kind of artificial deadline is simply untrue. This 
is all being done, as the majority leader said, to ``plow right 
through.''
  Taking time to do the investigation right would have put the entire 
enterprise at risk--the entire plan to put on the Supreme Court the 
person President Trump and Republicans believe will deliver the legal 
outcomes they want. Even if all of the testimony shows he can no longer 
be impartial, in this case, his record and testimony indicate that he 
will deliver the legal outcomes they want.

[[Page S6685]]

  Dr. Ford's courage in coming forward and telling what happened to her 
has empowered many of my Maryland constituents and many others around 
the country to come forward with their own stories of abuse.
  I have received written statements from over 50 Marylanders--over 50 
Marylanders--telling me about the sexual abuse they had encountered. 
Some of them told me they have shared with me what they have not shared 
with their own family members. They felt it was important that I know 
why they did not report their abuse at the time, why they did not tell 
their parents, and why their memories were not perfect decades later.
  They told me what they do remember. They told me they remember the 
clothing they wore the day they were assaulted. They told me they 
remember the scent, the cologne, and the feeling of unwanted hands. 
Those memories haunt them.

  These stories are reminders of how our society has let down survivors 
of sexual assault for decades. The way that these survivors have been 
treated has been shameful. I am humbled by the trust they have shown in 
sharing these experiences with me, and I will let the stories of a few 
of them speak for themselves here on the floor of the Senate.
  Here is what one woman wrote:

       Once [when] I was 16, I was at a party. There was alcohol. 
     He was popular, I wasn't. He was big and strong, I have never 
     been. He threatened me afterwards. He needn't have bothered. 
     He told me no one would believe me. He told me I wanted it. I 
     showed a friend the bruises. He said everyone would say I was 
     a slut. I told another friend I was frightened. She said I 
     should just avoid him in school. I told an adult I trusted at 
     my job. She told me about how when she reported when she was 
     young, how the police treated her, how her parents reacted. 
     How she regretted saying anything. I never told my parents. I 
     went to a free clinic and the ``therapist'' asked how could I 
     know it was rape if I had been drinking.

  Those are the powerful words from one Marylander.
  Another wrote:

       I remember the assault vividly. I was on my way home from 
     church. I don't remember the sermon before. Details are 
     fuzzy. But I remember the assault. I remember looking at a 
     nearby home where I knew elderly people lived. I could see 
     that their TV was on and I wondered, ``Would they even hear 
     me scream?'' I didn't tell people. I didn't think people 
     would believe me.

  Another constituent wrote me this quickly, without editing. She told 
me she cried when she read it to her husband. Here is what she wrote:

       Having experience in working with victims in a 
     prosecutorial manner, or as a judge, or even defending the 
     accused does not make you an expert. The expert is the 
     victim. I am that victim. I am that expert. And as such I can 
     tell you absolutely, without hesitation, that what haunts you 
     most, what affects how you relate in the future with your 
     loving spouse, what affects how you feel about yourself, and 
     what affects even your sense of smell, is the memory of the 
     person who abused you. Not the address where it took place, 
     not the time on the clock, not the day of the week--but the 
     smell of the person assaulting you, the feel of their hands, 
     the confusion in your head because you don't know what is 
     happening because it's all happening so fast, and yes--their 
     name. You never forget their name.

  She went on to say:

       Then comes the shame. What did I do to cause this? What 
     will people think of me now because I've been touched, I've 
     been tarnished, I'm not pure. Will I be believed? At this 
     point my life has already been altered beyond repair, but 
     it's an internal alter. If I talk, it alters my external 
     world as well. Maybe it's better to just not talk because 
     then at least I can pretend things are as they have always 
     been. I can just pretend that I'm exactly the same person--
     but I'm not.

  Another wrote that she understood that a man could move on from 
assaulting a woman particularly if they were drunk at the time. She 
said:

       The man who assaulted me later acted as if he was catching 
     up with an old friend and had no memory of the event. I have 
     several friends who have experienced the same thing.

  Another echoed a similar experience, writing:

       He had been drinking heavily with friends at a restaurant 
     or bar. I had not. Later that night, he raped [me]. He was 
     very inebriated and displayed a complete personality change. 
     He was violent and angry and did not even seem to see me. I 
     was paralyzed and probably saved my own life by not fighting 
     back as he had essentially become a rabid animal. The next 
     day I confronted him about what happened and he had no memory 
     of the crime he committed.

  These are not isolated incidents for survivors. As I have said, I 
have gotten over 50--over 50--personal testimonials from survivors 
since Dr. Ford had the courage to come forward. These are people who 
have not shared what happened to them with some of their closest 
friends or family members. These are stains etched in their memories. 
Many of them never told a soul. Others were ignored or dismissed when 
they brought up these awful experiences and were told to stay quiet.
  It is an insult to these survivors when some have called them 
partisan. In many cases, they went out of their way in their messages 
to me to say their concerns had nothing to do with ideology or 
partisanship--nothing. Some told me they are Republicans, and others 
are Independents. Some of them grew up in families who had no care 
about politics. Others told me they were Democrats but they would be 
more than willing to accept a different, conservative judge--but not 
this one.
  When Donald Trump went to a campaign rally and mocked Dr. Ford, he 
mocked every one of those 50 survivors who wrote to me. He mocked every 
survivor of sexual abuse around the country. And this Senate's decision 
to do as the majority leader said, ``plow right through'' without 
undertaking a thorough and serious investigation into the charges from 
Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, that also disrespects these survivors. That 
is what they say to me.
  Of course, Judge Kavanaugh did the same thing in his opening 
statement at his most recent hearing because his entire opening 
statement suggested that Dr. Ford's coming forward was part of some 
political conspiracy. Unfortunately, that is where this conversation 
has gone ever since--not an effort to really get to the truth, to 
really get all the facts but just to do what the majority leader said 
before she even testified: ``Plow right through.''
  We know that etched above the Supreme Court are the words ``Equal 
Justice Under Law.'' It does not say ``plow right through.''
  The decision to ``plow right through'' will undermine and haunt the 
integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come, and it will also 
haunt and undermine the integrity of this U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have to say I am sick of this. I am sick 
of everyone who wants to rewrite the history of what happened in the 
Senate with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States. It 
isn't even over yet, and they want people to believe that what we have 
witnessed over the past weeks was what they call a ``political hit job 
perpetrated by Democrats with a grudge.''
  That is the story the nominee himself tried to sell in his testimony 
on Thursday. He accused Democrats of lying in wait. He twisted Ranking 
Member Feinstein's respect for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's wish for 
privacy. He falsely claimed Democrats had her accusation ``ready,'' 
that Dr. Ford's accusation ``was held in secret for weeks,'' because 
the Democrats, as Judge Kavanaugh put it, ``couldn't take me out on the 
merits.''
  What a paranoid fantasy.
  Brett Kavanaugh's entire performance was an hour's long rant. I am 
quoting him. 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.

  Unbelievable, in my view. He claimed to have written this screed on 
his own without showing it to any of his handlers. I find that hard to 
believe, given that he was reported to have spent 10-hour days at the 
White House preparing for this hearing.
  We heard Dr. Ford's raw and sincere account of that night as a drunk 
teenaged Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge attacked her. The nominee 
called it a ``grotesque and coordinated character assassination.'' But 
this isn't a conspiracy, Judge Kavanaugh. It is real.
  Look at what Dr. Ford's coming forward has triggered. People believe 
her for many reasons. Her recall of events is consistent with the way 
survivors of trauma remember things. Her demeanor was forthright and 
open. She had everything to lose and nothing to

[[Page S6686]]

gain by coming forward, and despite what many are saying, there is 
quite a bit of collaboration of her story.
  She knew Brett Kavanaugh. She socialized with his circle of friends. 
She had told people in her life what happened to her long before Brett 
Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. His calendar attests to 
him having attended at least one gathering consistent with her 
recollection.
  But another reason so many people believe Dr. Ford is that her 
account is so familiar. It has echoes in so many of our own stories, 
our own experiences. So many women have survived some version of what 
happened to her, along a spectrum of experiences that range from creepy 
looks or catcalls to rape and other violent attacks. So many women have 
kept their stories to themselves for fear of not being believed, for 
fear of retaliation or humiliation, or shunning.
  In a column written by Monica Hesse in the Washington Post, entitled 
``Dear dads: Your daughters told me about their assaults. This is why 
they never told you,'' Ms. Hesse writes about all the reasons why 
survivors don't even tell people closest to them about what happened to 
them.
  She writes:

       For all the stereotypes that linger about women being too 
     fragile or emotional, these past weeks have revealed what 
     many women already knew: A lot of effort goes into protecting 
     men we love from bad things that happen to us.''

  She writes to fathers who are only now finding out about the daily 
indignities women endure and explains why they were never told and why 
their loved ones were now writing to Hesse herself.
  I am going to quote extensively from this article:

       To the father of the young woman who was assaulted by the 
     student athlete she was hired to tutor: She never told you 
     because she didn't want to break your heart. But she told me, 
     in a long email, because the memory of it was breaking her 
     own heart and she'd spent five years replaying it.
       To the father of the junior high student who was pinned 
     down and undressed at a gathering 30 years ago: She didn't 
     tell you because she didn't want to see you cry. But she told 
     me that she still remembers every detail.
       To the father of the teenager who was raped at a party: You 
     don't know about this, because she was certain that if you 
     knew, you would kill her attacker and go to prison, and it 
     would be her fault.
       To the father of the son who was assaulted by an older man: 
     I wish I could tell you more about what happened to him, but 
     he wouldn't tell me, and he definitely won't tell you, 
     because manliness is important to you, he says.
       To all the fathers of all the silent victims: Your children 
     are quietly carrying these stories, not because they can't 
     handle the emotions but because they are worried that you 
     can't.
       They are worried that your emotions will have too many 
     consequences. Or they fear you won't think of them the same 
     way. Or that you'll be distraught because you didn't protect 
     them.

  These words and stories are powerful, and Ms. Hesse is right. So many 
survivors want to protect their loved ones, but Ms. Hesse is also right 
that they shouldn't keep their stories in. She urges them, saying:

       So, to the rest of you: If you could tell your father in a 
     way that feels safe, and in a way that would bring you 
     comfort, tell your father. Tell your brothers. Let them be 
     uncomfortable; let them share some of your pain. Don't let 
     them be ignorant.

  And once women are able to share their experiences, what should we do 
with them? I agree with the author Rebecca Traister, who captured so 
much of what I have been thinking lately in a piece called ``Fury Is a 
Political Weapon, and Women Need to Wield It.'' This is in the New York 
Times. I want to read some of it to you.
  Ms. Tracer wrote:

       Outside the room where Christine Blasey Ford forward was 
     testifying on Thursday morning, women were incandescent with 
     rage and sorrow and horror.
       They were getting angry in a new way, a public way, an 
     unapologetic way--a way that is typically reserved for men, 
     and that would again serve men well, when afternoon came.
       Brett Kavanaugh bellowed; he snarled; he pouted and wept 
     furiously at the injustice of having his ascendance to power 
     interrupted by accusations of sexual assault.
       He challenged his questioners, turned their queries back on 
     them.
       What happened inside the room was an exceptionally clear 
     distillation of who has historically been allowed to be angry 
     on their own behalf, and who has not.
       And outside the room was a hint of how it might be 
     changing.
       Most of the time, female anger is discouraged, repressed, 
     ignored, swallowed. Or transformed into something more 
     palatable and less recognizable as fury--something like 
     tears. When women are truly lived, they often weep.
       Maybe we cry when we're furious in part because we feel a 
     kind of grief at all the things we want to say or yell that 
     we know we can't.
       Maybe we're just sad about the very same things that we're 
     angry about. I wept as soon as Dr. Blasey began to speak.
       On social media, I saw hundreds of messages from women who 
     reported the same experience, of finding themselves awash in 
     tears, simply in response to this woman's voice, raised in 
     polite dissent.
       The power of the moment, the anxiety that it would be 
     futile, the grief that we would even have to put her--and 
     ourselves--through this spectacle, was intense.
       Tears are permitted as an outlet for wrath in part because 
     they are fundamentally misunderstood.
       One of my sharpest memories from an early job in a male-
     dominated office, where I once found myself weeping with 
     inexpressible rage, was my being grabbed by the scruff of my 
     neck by an older woman--a chilly manager of whom I'd always 
     been slightly terrified--who dragged me into a stairwell.
       ``Never let them see you crying,'' she told me. ``They 
     don't know you're furious. They think you're sad and will be 
     pleased because they got to you.''
       This political moment has provoked a period in which more 
     and more women have been in no mood to dress their fury up as 
     anything other than raw and burning rage.
       Many women are yelling, shouting, using Sharpies to etch 
     sharply worded slogans onto protest signs, making furious 
     phone calls to representatives.
       Many of the women shouting now are women who have not 
     previously yelled publicly before, many of them, white 
     middle-class women newly awakened to political fury and 
     protest.
       Part of the process of becoming mad must be recognizing 
     that they are not the first to be furious, and that there is 
     much to learn from the stories and histories of the lived 
     women--many of them not white or middle class--who have never 
     had reason not to be mad.
       If you are angry today, or if you have been angry for 
     awhile, and you're wondering whether you're allowed to be as 
     angry as you feel, let me say: Yes. Yes, you are allowed. You 
     are, in fact, compelled.
       If you've been feeling a new rage at the flaws of this 
     country, and if your anger is making you want to change your 
     life in order to change the world, then I have something 
     incredibly important to say: Don't forget how this feels.

  That is Rebecca Traister's article.
  Traister ends her article by endorsing anger and telling women not to 
let go of it. She says:

       What you're angry about now--injustice--will still exist, 
     even if you yourself are not experiencing it, or are tempted 
     to stop thinking about how you experience it, and how you 
     contribute to it.
       Others are still experiencing it, still mad; some of them 
     are mad at you. Don't forget them; don't write off their 
     anger. Stay mad for them, alongside them, let them lead you 
     in anger.

  That is what I am left with, Mr. President. Anger. Fury. Disgust. At 
a process that could not see the truth of what Dr. Ford tried to tell 
us.
  The rewriters of truth are already at it. In column after column, on 
cable news shows across the country, and even here on the Senate floor, 
they are casting Judge Kavanaugh as the victim.
  I was asked a few days ago whether the four Democratic women on the 
Judiciary Committee had a special responsibility to address the 
question of sexual assault. I reject the premise of that question. It 
is not just up to the women in this country to stand up. Men have to 
join us. They have to hold themselves and other men accountable. They 
have to push back against the fear that those with power feel when they 
are challenged. We saw some of the ways that this kind of fear operates 
just this week among some of my Senate colleagues.
  When approached by survivors of sexual assault who waited to talk to 
them about the Kavanaugh nomination, they said things like ``Grow up,'' 
insinuating that the women sharing their painful, traumatic accounts 
were there to enjoy themselves. Enjoy themselves?
  We saw the President of the United States sink to a level I didn't 
think possible. The mocker-in-chief mocked Dr. Ford, a survivor of 
sexual assault. He mocked her for not remembering some peripheral 
things about the attack. But the thing she said she was 100 percent 
sure of was that it was Brett Kavanaugh who attacked her.
  In case some of my colleagues don't get it, sexual assault survivors 
often

[[Page S6687]]

don't remember how many steps, how many rooms, the kinds of things the 
President mocked Dr. Ford about. But they remember the attack itself 
with 100 percent accuracy. They remember how it felt, the fear, the 
laughter of the attackers.
  The kinds of insults that have been hurled at Dr. Ford and others in 
her situation are cruel and unnecessary. I am left with anger and 
determination, just like millions of people across the country.
  I will take Rebecca Traister's advice and commend it to the women of 
America and the men who understand their stories. I will stay mad and 
let that anger propel us to change. Going forward, I will continue to 
listen to women who have shared their stories. I will tell them that I 
hear them, I see them, and I want all of us to be the change that needs 
to happen in our country.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to read a statement from Debbie 
Ramirez dated October 6, 2018. She says:

       Thirty-five years ago, the other students in the room chose 
     to laugh and look the other way as sexual violence was 
     perpetrated on me by Brett Kavanaugh. As I watch many of the 
     Senators speak and vote on the floor of the Senate I feel 
     like I'm right back at Yale where half the room is laughing 
     and looking the other way. Only this time, instead of drunk 
     college kids, it is U.S. Senators who are deliberately 
     ignoring his behavior. This is how victims are isolated and 
     silenced.
       But I do have corroborating witnesses speaking for me, 
     although they were not allowed to speak to the FBI, and I 
     feel extremely grateful for them and for the overwhelming 
     amount of support that I have received and continue to 
     receive during this extremely difficult and painful time. 
     There may be people with power who are looking the other way, 
     but there are millions more who are standing together, 
     speaking up about personal experiences of sexual violence and 
     taking action to support survivors. This is truly a 
     collective moment of survivors and allies standing together.
       Thank you for hearing me, seeing me and believing me. I am 
     grateful for each and every one of you. We will not be 
     silenced.
       We stand in truth and light, Debbie Ramirez.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of 
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be our next Associate Justice on the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  Confirming Supreme Court Justices is one of the most important and 
sacred roles of the Senate. Supreme Court candidates represent 
individuals who have reached the highest level of their profession and 
are often the brightest legal minds of their generation. Beyond their 
stellar resumes, they must have a proven track record of approaching 
each case with care and a commitment to upholding our rule of law and 
the Constitution. Judge Kavanaugh easily exceeds these standards and is 
highly qualified for confirmation to our nation's highest court.
  I met with Judge Kavanaugh in July and got the chance to talk with 
him about his judicial philosophy and record. During our conversation, 
I was struck by his professionalism, commitment to the Constitution, 
and vast knowledge of our legal system. We discussed the important 
issues facing Wyoming, and I believe he understands my State's unique 
challenges. As a rural, western State, we are constantly battling 
Federal Government overreach from Washington, DC. Judge Kavanaugh has a 
long history of reining in executive agencies that stretch beyond their 
statutory authorities, which is a welcome relief for my State. Wyoming 
is a State full of citizens who expect our courts to uphold the 
Constitution as the framers originally intended it.
  I voted to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a judge to the DC Circuit Court 
of Appeals over a decade ago. Since that time, Judge Kavanaugh has 
become widely regarded by his peers as one of the most respected 
circuit judges in the Nation. He is a prolific writer and has authored 
more than 300 opinions, demonstrating his firm commitment to the rule 
of law. Having reviewed his record, and based on his experience and 
writings, I believe Judge Kavanaugh will fairly and impartially 
interpret the law.
  Over a decade ago, when the Senate was considering the nominations of 
Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, I gave a floor speech where I 
stated that ``[W]e have shifted into an era of judges who legislate. We 
must return to the elementary doctrines that [recognize] the important 
and distinct roles of each branch.'' That sentiment is more true now 
than ever. Elected representatives in Congress are held accountable to 
the people and must demonstrate their fidelity to their constituents' 
concerns to remain in office. There is no such check on our judiciary. 
Congress's job is to write the law, and the courts are tasked with 
interpreting the law and determining its adherence to the Constitution, 
not writing it themselves. I believe Judge Kavanaugh understands this 
distinction thoroughly and has a proven track record of refraining from 
rewriting laws from the bench. His confirmation to the Supreme Court 
will set a new standard for our judicial system that encourages this 
type of philosophy, one that shies away from activism and focuses on 
the true role of the courts to interpret the law.
  I also appreciate Judge Kavanaugh's commitment to service. Since the 
beginning of his career, he has spent several decades in various roles 
in the public sector, serving our Nation. From the Bush administration 
and now to the courts, he has dedicated his life to public service and 
served our Nation honorably. He is also a family man who volunteers his 
extra time at his church or helping deliver meals to other people. Of 
all of the shining spots on Judge Kavanaugh's resume, this may be the 
most impressive.
  Serious accusations were recently made against Judge Kavanaugh. It is 
a Senator's job when giving advice and consent on nominations to give 
such accusations, and the people making them, careful consideration. I 
do not condone sexual assault in any case, and allegations must be 
taken seriously. All parties deserve fair treatment. I believe they got 
it, and the committee rendered its decision.
  The situation surrounding these accusations included noise and 
political pandemonium the likes of which we have thankfully not had too 
many occasions to witness in the history of our country. That is why I 
was appreciative of how Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley 
conducted committee consideration of this nomination. He cut through 
the conjecture, speculation, frenzy, and focused the committee on fair 
consideration for accusers and accused.
  I made my decision to vote for Judge Kavanaugh based on my meeting 
with him, his long and meritorious record of public service and as a 
judge, which involved multiple FBI background checks, including the 
most recent supplemental review, and the Judiciary Committee's work on 
the nomination. That work included a day of questions about the 
accusations made against Judge Kavanaugh. At the conclusion of this 
process, no new facts were revealed and no corroboration of the 
accusations was presented.
  Like Justice Gorsuch before him, I believe Judge Kavanaugh would 
issue decisions adhering to a strict interpretation of the 
Constitution, free from outside pressure. I applaud President Trump for 
taking his responsibility to nominate qualified Justices so seriously.
  Thank you.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, yesterday, we heard our colleague from 
Maine express the hope that his ``nomination is where the process has 
finally hit rock bottom.'' On this, I agree. I hope we never again 
reach a place where women are as disrespected, ignored, and 
disregarded, as they have been throughout this confirmation process.
  My colleague also observed that ``[w]e live in a time of such great 
disunity'' that ``people bear[ ] extreme ill will toward those who 
disagree with them.'' While that may be true for some, I think many of 
us who have strongly spoken out about our concerns about Judge 
Kavanaugh's nominations do not bear any ill will against those who 
disagree with us. In fact, being able to strongly disagree with others 
and voice our opinions without being told to ``grow up'' or called a 
``loud mouth'' reflects a respect for the American values of democracy 
and respecting women. It is in that spirit, I would like to clarify 
several misunderstandings raised by my colleague.
  As my colleague from Maine noted, she cares about protecting women's 
reproductive rights. Given this concern, I feel compelled to clarify 
her description of Judge Kavanaugh's record on

[[Page S6688]]

reproductive rights. She referenced, without naming, Judge Kavanaugh's 
dissenting opinion in favor of a religious organization, Priests for 
Life. In that case, he argued that religious employers could deny their 
women employees access to healthcare coverage of contraception because 
filling out a 2-page form was too burdensome for them.
  Despite this conclusion, my colleague described Judge Kavanaugh's 
decision as ``seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive 
services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with 
religious objections.'' It is hard to see how blocking access to 
contraceptives for women by finding a 2-page form too burdensome is 
truly seeking to ensure access to contraceptives.
  She claimed that his critics ``frequently overlook'' the fact that he 
wrote that ``Supreme Court precedent `strongly suggested' that there 
was a `compelling interest' in facilitating access to birth control.'' 
But that ignores the fact that regardless of this rhetoric, Judge 
Kavanaugh has consistently demonstrated hostility to women's 
reproductive rights, including in the very case that she referenced, 
Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services. Moreover, 
if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh can make clear 
to the entire country that facilitating access to contraceptives is not 
a compelling interest.
  I am also very concerned that my colleague failed to mention the key 
case addressing Judge Kavanaugh's views on women's reproductive rights, 
Garza v. Hargan. In that case, a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant 
sought release from HHS custody to obtain an abortion. In his dissent, 
Judge Kavanaugh mischaracterized the case as one of ``parental 
consent'' case to reach his desired outcome, denying this young women 
access to her constitutional right to an abortion. Parental consent was 
not at issue at all in that case. The young woman had already received 
a proper judicial bypass from a Texas judge. That case is troubling not 
only because it shows Judge Kavanaugh's complete disregard for a 
woman's right to make her own decisions about the most intimate aspects 
of her life, but also because it reveals his willingness to 
misrepresent the law and facts to reach his partisan, desired outcome.
  Although some of my colleagues have tried to hang their hat on Judge 
Kavanaugh's generic statements about his respect for precedent, even 
his own colleagues have criticized him for ignoring precedent, when 
expedient. In one case, United States v. Anthem, his colleagues in the 
majority sharply criticized his dissent, stating that their 
``dissenting colleague applies the law as he wishes it were, not as it 
currently is.''
  My colleague from Maine also noted Judge Kavanaugh's ``rave reviews . 
. . as a judge, including for his judicial temperament.'' She pointed 
to the fact that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on 
the Federal Judiciary, ABA, ``concluded that `his integrity, judicial 
temperament, and professional confidence met the highest standard.' '' 
But I would be remiss if I didn't further note that the ABA informed 
the Judiciary Committee yesterday morning that it was reopening its 
evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh because of ``[n]ew information of a 
material nature regarding temperament during the September 27th hearing 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee.'' This new information includes 
Judge Kavanaugh's angry, partisan screed on September 27, when he 
accused Senators of ``orchestrat[ing] a political hit'' as ``revenge on 
behalf of the Clintons'' and ominously said, ``what goes around comes 
around.''
  These statements, which were not mentioned by my colleague, directly 
contradict Judge Kavanaugh's statements of nonpartisanship that my 
colleague quoted in her remarks. But the most important clarification 
that I feel compelled to make is my colleague's discussion of Dr. 
Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. My colleague stated that she ``found 
[Dr. Ford's] testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling.'' She 
also said that she ``believe[s] [Dr. Ford] is a survivor of a sexual 
assault and that this trauma has upended her life.''
  But these statements of support were followed in the caveat, 
``Nevertheless.'' ``Nevertheless,'' it was said, ``the four witnesses 
[Dr. Ford] named could not corroborate any of the events of the evening 
gathering where she said the assault occurred.'' My colleague raised 
questions about the fact that no one came forward from this small 
gathering in the summer of 1982 to say that they were at the party or 
that they gave Dr. Ford a ride home that night. Point by point, these 
statements sought to poke holes in Dr. Ford's testimony based on little 
details.
  In the midst of the questions raised about these little details in 
Dr. Ford's testimony, the bottom line message was clear: Dr. Ford was 
not to be believed. She was mixed up, mistaken. By contrast, Judge 
Kavanaugh was to be believed because he ``forcefully denied the 
allegations under penalty of perjury.'' But there was no mention of the 
fact that Dr. Ford also testified until penalty of perjury and said she 
was ``100 percent'' certain it was Brett Kavanaugh who sexually 
assaulted her in the summer of 1982.
  In contrast to the claim that there was a ``lack of corroborating 
evidence,'' there was significant corroborating evidence, as my 
colleagues have already entered into the Record. To highlight just a 
few, Dr. Ford's account was corroborated by Dr. Ford's therapist, 
results of a polygraph examination, and other witnesses who were told 
about Dr. Ford's account of her sexual assault, even before Judge 
Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court.
  In contrast to my colleague's description of this process as a 
dysfunctional ``frenzy'' of special interest groups spreading 
``outright falsehoods,'' I believe what we have heard over the past few 
weeks is democracy in action. Across America, women and men have been 
sharing their painful experiences of sexual assault and why it matters 
that someone who commits sexual assault should not be rewarded with a 
seat on the highest court in the land. They are saying character, 
credibility, candor, and temperament matter. Those are the American 
values we will be rejecting today, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to 
the Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii for her comments. She has had a strong voice of reason and 
conscience throughout this whole debate.
  This is not a normal confirmation vote. I have now served in the 
Senate for 19 Supreme Court nominations, more than any other Senator. I 
have never seen so much at stake with a single seat. I have never seen 
this much at stake precisely because this is about so much more than 
one seat. Indeed, the integrity of two of the three coequal branches of 
our Republic is at stake. This vote will decide whether the U.S. 
Senate--which, at its best, can serve as the conscience of the Nation--
causes the Supreme Court to be indelibly tainted in the eyes of 
millions of Americans, perhaps more than half of the country.
  To be clear, my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh is not because he was 
nominated by a Republican President. In my 44 years in the Senate, I 
have voted for more Republican-appointed judges than almost every 
single Republican Senator serving today. That includes, of course, 
voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. But Judge Kavanaugh is 
not a typical conservative nominee. My opposition is driven by my firm 
belief that his confirmation will bring great harm to the court, to 
this body, and to millions of hard-working Americans.
  Judge Kavanaugh has been relentlessly dishonest under oath. I am not 
just referring to the fact that he 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 
that, of course, does speak to his credibility, as he concocted far-
fetched story after far-fetched story, all to avoid conceding facts 
that would corroborate the Brett Kavanaugh as described by Dr. Ford and 
Ms. Ramirez.
  But it is much more than that--much, much more than that. Every 
single time Judge Kavanaugh has testified before the Senate--in 2004, 
in 2006, and twice in 2018--he has misled and dissembled. On issues big 
and small, anytime he has been faced with questions that are 
incriminating, or would place

[[Page S6689]]

him in the middle of controversy, he has shown that he cannot be 
trusted to tell the truth. He misled the Senate. Following questions by 
both Republicans and Democrats, he misled the Senate about his role in 
a hacking scandal and thefts from the U.S. Senate. He misled the Senate 
about his role in confirming several controversial judicial nominees 
and in shaping the legal justifications for some of the Bush 
administration's most extreme and eventually discredited policies. I 
have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade and deny the 
truth in service of his own raw ambition. For decades, that ambition 
has let him, step after step, evade the truth if it is in any way going 
to stop his ambitions.
  The truth is, we are just beginning to learn about Judge Kavanaugh's 
dishonesty under oath. His false testimony during his 2004 and 2006 
confirmation hearings only came to light as the Judiciary Committee 
obtained some of his White House emails--some because Senate 
Republicans blocked access to 90 percent--90 percent--of his White 
House records. Compare that to when Justice Kagan was here, we made 
sure that Republicans and Democrats had 99 percent of her records, and 
they were briefed on the remaining 1 percent. Here, 90 percent was 
blocked. So everything we have learned about his prior dishonesty comes 
from just 10 percent of his record. Many more of these records are 
eventually going to become public after today. In fact, I joined a 
lawsuit, led by Senator Blumenthal, to force the National Archives to 
release these records. So if 10 percent of his records show dishonesty, 
what are the chances that the other 90 percent do not contain 
additional evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's dishonesty under oath? I would 
say the chance is about zero.
  It is not just Judge Kavanaugh's veracity that is disqualifying; it 
is also his temperament and his partisan zeal. When Brett Kavanaugh was 
nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004, he was known 
only as a hyper-partisan political operative. Because he was seen as so 
hyperpolitical, it took 2 years to get him confirmed. Since Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, I had wondered whether his 
earlier partisan zeal that held him up for 2 years has remained.
  Well, it was confirmed last week that it does remain. I have never 
seen a nominee, either Republican or Democrat, so consumed by partisan 
rancor. In testimony that veered into a tirade, he angrily attacked 
Senators and 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,'' wherever that came from--were an insult to Dr. Ford and to 
survivors of sexual violence everywhere. It is not how a patron of the 
President of the United States continues to deride victims of sexual 
violence.
  Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee--actually, 
he was the first nominee I was able to vote on as a U.S. Senator, and I 
voted for him. This Republican appointee, well-respected Supreme Court 
Justice, declared that Judge Kavanaugh's unhinged performance last week 
demonstrates ``potential bias.'' Justice Stevens said that ``for the 
good of the Court,'' Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation ought not to 
proceed. Just yesterday, contrary to the statements made on the floor 
of the Senate, the American Bar Association announced that it is 
reopening its evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve as a 
judge. These developments--both unprecedented--should serve as flashing 
red warning signs to any Senator inclined to vote yes at this time.
  And there are more flashing red signs.
  Dr. Ford's credible and compelling testimony captivated the Nation 
and inspired survivors of sexual violence across the country. Every 
minute of her testimony was credible. She disclosed the abuse long 
before Judge Kavanaugh was a household name. She remembered vivid 
details of that night. She expressed 100 percent certainty that Judge 
Kavanaugh was her abuser. In a moment that I will never forget, when I 
asked her: Doctor, what is your strongest memory--something that she 
could not forget--she testified: ``Indelible in the hippocampus is the 
laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two'' as a teenage Brett 
Kavanaugh and a friend drunkenly assaulted Dr. Ford.
  Dr. Ford had nothing to gain by coming forward. I believe her, just 
as I believed Anita Hill. In my view, no one who truly believes Dr. 
Ford can credibly justify voting yes. Unfortunately, the Senate appears 
to be on the brink of failing Dr. Ford, just as it will fail Ms. 
Ramirez, and just as it failed Anita Hill.
  The FBI investigation completed over the last few days falls short of 
any standard. And it fell short by design. We have already heard about 
its deficiencies from Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and numerous other 
witnesses who attempted, unsuccessfully, to share relevant information 
with the FBI.
  Senate Republican leadership in the White House did everything in 
their power to ensure this investigation was not a search for truth but 
rather a search for cover. Even a basic search for the truth would have 
allowed the FBI to interview Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, as well as 
her husband and her therapist. A search for truth would have allowed 
the FBI to view numerous high school and college classmates who come 
forward saying they could provide information about Judge Kavanaugh's 
conduct during those years that was consistent with the allegation.
  A search for the truth would have allowed the FBI to interview a man 
who wrote a sworn statement asserting he could corroborate Ms. 
Ramirez's allegations or two women who contacted authorities with 
evidence that Judge Kavanaugh tried to head off Ms. Ramirez's story 
before it became public. That was in clear contradiction to his 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee. A search for the truth would 
have allowed the FBI to at least speak with Julie Swetnick, a third 
accuser.
  As Vermonters said to me last weekend when I was home, if they have 
nothing to hide, why the rush? If they have nothing to hide, why don't 
they take the time to find the whole truth?
  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. This individual 
had no knowledge of the alleged incident but instead wanted to describe 
the alleged sexual preferences of Ms. Swetnick. According to the 
National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence--one of the 
most nonpartisan and respected voices on Capitol Hill--this shameless 
attempt to smear the victim violates the intent of the Rape Shield law.
  Look what happened. On the one hand, you have the President of the 
United States at a rally trying to shame the victim, who, of course, is 
a woman. Then, on the other hand, we have Ms. Swetnick, who has never 
even been interviewed by the FBI. She was ignored. She was silenced. 
Then, to follow the routine of this administration, she was shamed. It 
is outrageous she has been treated that way.
  Republicans have also claimed the other individuals Dr. Ford 
identified at the gathering where she was assaulted have refuted her 
testimony. These Republicans know that is false. Those individuals 
stated publicly they do not recall the event.
  As Dr. Ford told the Judiciary Committee, this is not surprising, as 
``it was a very unremarkable party . . . because nothing remarkable 
happened to them that evening.'' One of these individuals has said 
publicly she believes Dr. Ford.
  Republicans have claimed the investigation failed to review core 
objective evidence for any of these allegations. Despite the numerous 
restrictions placed on this investigation, that simply is not true, but 
a predicate fact for developing thorough corroborating evidence is a 
thorough investigation. This investigation fell far short. When I was a 
prosecutor, I never would have allowed an investigation to have left 
out so many salient points. It is a disservice to Ms. Ford, Ms. 
Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick. It is a disservice to survivors everywhere.
  The manic rush to place Judge Kavanaugh on the bench was more 
important to many in this Senate than these women. Pushing toward 
confirmation while so many leads remain unexamined will forever taint a 
Justice

[[Page S6690]]

Kavanaugh, and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself.
  Yet truth can be dogged. It has a way of coming out, eventually. For 
any Senator who votes yes while troubling new developments in this 
nominee are occurring in real time, it will be on their conscience when 
more disqualifying information later emerges--and it will. I urge them 
to think carefully about what a ``yes'' vote would mean to the 
legitimacy of the Supreme Court, to the integrity of the Senate, and to 
the increasing divisiveness in our Nation.
  As partisan as this process has been, this is not a partisan dilemma. 
Many prominent conservatives will make a fine Supreme Court Justice. As 
I said at the beginning of my speech, I voted for more Republican 
nominees than almost any Republican Senator in this body, but these 
other people would not cast a shadow over the Supreme Court and a 
shadow over the U.S. Senate. Judge Kavanaugh is not that choice. To 
avoid risking permanent damage in the integrity of our institution as a 
government, I urge Senators to join me in voting no on Judge 
Kavanaugh's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we come together today to talk about a 
critical nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court at a time when the Court 
will be considering a range of issues that are critically important to 
the American people. Right now, one of the issues a lot of Americans 
are most concerned about is the issue of healthcare. There are so many 
aspects to that issue we can examine today.
  I will get to larger overriding concerns I have with the nomination 
in a moment. For now, what I will do is walk through some concerns I 
have when it comes to healthcare itself and, in particular, Americans 
with disabilities because I think, in this part of the debate and in 
this part of Judge Kavanaugh's record and the potential impact his 
decisions as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court will have on 
healthcare itself and people with disabilities--this whole part of his 
record and what might happen has not been examined enough in this 
debate.
  I will start with healthcare. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed today, 
he could be the deciding vote in eliminating key healthcare protections 
for people with preexisting conditions--an action that would have 
serious repercussions on the healthcare of millions of Americans. This 
administration and congressional Republicans have been trying for the 
better part of the last 2 years to rip away healthcare coverage from 
the people who need it the most across America.
  Republicans in both branches of government--the executive branch and 
the legislative branch--have attempted to decimate Medicaid. Although 
they have been unable so far to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act in 
Congress, the Republicans have turned to the courts to sabotage the 
healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act.
  By the way, while we are mentioning the Medicaid Program, let's 
remind the American people what that program is. The Medicaid Program 
is not a ``them'' program, it is an ``us'' program. It is about us--who 
we are as Americans, whether we are going to take care of the family of 
America.
  I think my home State is representative of the impact Medicaid has on 
people across the country. Forty percent of the children in 
Pennsylvania get their healthcare through the Medicaid Program; 50 
percent of the people with disabilities in Pennsylvania rely upon 
Medicaid; and 60 percent of seniors trying to get into a nursing home 
for long-term care in the twilight of their lives rely upon the 
Medicaid Program. Forty percent of the kids, 50 percent of people with 
disabilities, and 60 percent of seniors rely upon this program--some 70 
million Americans.
  The decisions by this Congress, or this body, and the entire 
legislative branch are critically important on Medicaid and healthcare; 
obviously, the decisions of the executive branch. Now we have to focus 
as well on the judicial branch, especially with the nomination that 
could tip the balance in 5-to-4 decisions.
  Judge Kavanaugh has twice disagreed with rulings upholding the 
Affordable Care Act. It is no coincidence he has been nominated by this 
President, by this administration. President Trump apparently believes 
he can count on Justice Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed, to rule 
against the Affordable Care Act when he is on the Supreme Court, if he 
were to be confirmed today.
  You don't have to take my word for this. A former law clerk of Judge 
Kavanaugh's said it best when she spoke up about Kavanaugh's view of 
the Affordable Care Act: ``No other contender on President Trump's list 
is on record so vigorously opposing the law''--the law meaning the 
Affordable Care Act that brought healthcare to 20 million Americans, 
about more than half of them because we expanded Medicaid.
  Right now, courts are considering whether people with preexisting 
conditions should be protected from being charged more, from being 
denied coverage, or being dropped from their insurance simply because 
of their health status. Who would ever believe that after putting into 
law, enacting into law, those protections for 130 million Americans, we 
would still be debating it and that an entire political party would be 
in a court of law arguing those protections are unconstitutional? It is 
an insult to who we are as Americans.
  In Texas v. United States, the administration last sided with 20 
Republican State attorneys general and is refusing to defend the 
Affordable Care Act's protections for people with preexisting 
conditions. What is at stake in this legal battle that could obviously 
end up, down the road, in the Supreme Court? It is 130 million 
Americans with preexisting conditions. That means people with diabetes 
or cancer or anything else that is a preexisting condition could have 
their lives grossly adversely impacted. The Supreme Court might be the 
last line of defense to maintaining those protections for people with 
preexisting conditions. A Justice Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote 
to rip away protections which are in law now, right now, and they could 
be taken away.
  If Republicans were to win this fight, coverage for millions of 
Americans who have these protections would be adversely impacted. That 
is probably an understatement. We also have to be concerned about the 
fundamentals of our health insurance system--the fundamental stability 
of our healthcare system, which could be undermined or worse.
  Such a decision by the Supreme Court would have real-life 
consequences. In Pennsylvania alone, 5.3 million people, including 
643,000 children, have a preexisting condition. I will tell you the 
story of one of those children.
  Jackson Corbin is 13 years old and lives in Hanover, PA. He lives 
with his mother Anna, his father Michael, and his brother Henry. 
Jackson, Henry, and their mom all have Noonan syndrome--a congenital 
disability that often involves heart attacks, bleeding problems, 
possible developmental delays, short stature, and malformation of the 
rib cage--all of that in the life of one child. Jackson's most 
troubling concern is a form of hemophilia called Von Willebrand 
disease. Because of this disease, he has to be very careful not to cut 
himself or to do things that might cause internal bleeding. This means 
Jackson cannot play sports. He cannot roller skate or even jump on a 
trampoline. The cost of his healthcare--including medications and 
treatments and specialists--is more than what his parents would make in 
a year. Without health insurance coverage they are able to purchase 
through the Affordable Care Act--including protections for preexisting 
conditions--the Corbin family would either go bankrupt or Jackson, his 
mother, and his brother would have to go without treatment, risking 
their lives.
  Last month Jackson testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and 
spoke about what Judge Kavanaugh's nomination meant for him, Jackson 
Corbin.

       My Noonan Syndrome is part of who I am. It has been a part 
     of me since the day I was born, and will be a part of me for 
     the rest of my life. If you destroy protections for 
     preexisting conditions, you will leave me and all the kids 
     and adults like me without care or without the ability to 
     afford our care--all because of who we are.


[[Page S6691]]


  Let me repeat those last few words of Jackson Corbin, 13 years old: 
``without care or without the ability to afford our care.''
  That is what we are talking about here. Judge Kavanaugh could very 
well be the deciding vote in determining the future of this child and 
the future of members of his family.
  All of us, everybody in this building today, are just one illness 
away--each of us is just one injury away--from having our own 
preexisting condition, if we don't have one already.
  Maybe Senators and judges and Justices don't have to worry about 
protections for preexisting conditions. Maybe they can all buy that 
protection one way or another, but 130 million Americans have to worry 
and have to worry about this consequential nomination on an issue of 
such grave importance as healthcare itself and maybe, most especially, 
protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  How about disabilities? Judge Kavanaugh's record on the rights of 
individuals with disabilities is troubling as well. I will give you one 
example. Liz Weintraub, like Jackson, testified in front of the 
Judiciary Committee in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to 
the Supreme Court. I know Liz Weintraub well. She is 51 years old. She 
is from Rockville, MD. She has cerebral palsy and an intellectual 
disability. She had two loving parents and three loving sisters, and 
for 4 months this year, she was on my staff as a legislative fellow. So 
I am not objective when it comes to Liz Weintraub, but here is what she 
told us. The work she did, of course, on our staff was significant. She 
helped to organize hearings and worked on disability issues to educate 
our office and me, as well as other Senate offices about the importance 
of hiring people with disabilities.
  But Liz experienced low expectations in her life. She was told by 
educators she could never attend college. She spent 9 years in a 
private institution. She was told she had to work in a sheltered 
workshop.
  Despite these barriers, Liz persevered and achieved her dream of 
being a disability policy advocate. Her knowledge, experience, and 
wisdom made my office a better place on these issues and a better place 
to work in. It strengthened our office's ability to work on disability 
policy.
  Let's get to the judge's record on these issues.
  Judge Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, shows a pattern of siding against 
individuals with disabilities. He has sided with employers over 
employees who have a disability, making it more difficult for employees 
to prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under 
the law.
  In a case called Doe v. District of Columbia, he called into question 
the very autonomy and right to self-determination of people with 
disabilities. The case involved three women who had intellectual 
disabilities and lived in facilities run by the District of Columbia. 
The District allowed medical professionals to decide when elective 
surgeries would be performed on these women without even consulting 
with them and without even trying to determine the wishes of these 
three women.
  The trial court sided with the women in this case and said the 
District of Columbia had to attempt to determine what these women 
wanted before making medical decisions on their behalf. Judge Kavanaugh 
overturned the lower court decision. He questioned the basic liberty of 
individuals with disabilities. He allowed the government to continue 
making medical decisions on behalf of these three women in the District 
of Columbia without ever attempting to determine what they wanted.
  This decision is offensive to the American people, but it is 
offensive, I think, to people with disabilities even more so and to 
people who have fought for decades to secure the rights of people with 
disabilities. The decision robbed these women of their autonomy, and it 
robbed them of their humanity.
  Liz Weintraub said in her testimony:

       I worry that if a Justice on the Supreme Court does not 
     believe that we, as people with intellectual disabilities, 
     CAN MAKE decisions for ourselves, then we will have the right 
     to make those decisions taken away from us. . . . That is why 
     I am opposing Judge Kavanaugh.

  These are the words of Liz Weintraub, speaking for many Americans 
with disabilities. I want to thank Liz for her testimony and for coming 
forward to speak on behalf of those Americans.
  These decisions about these rights for people with disabilities don't 
just impact the individuals in the particular lawsuit. They also set a 
precedent for future cases and send a message about the values of our 
country about whose rights we consider worthy of protection.
  If our courts don't protect the rights and dignity of people with 
disabilities, then, what are our courts there for? We have to ask that 
question.
  I want to conclude with just a couple of more comments.
  There has been a lot of debate and a lot of commentary and a lot of 
vigorous disagreement about the back and forth that occurred just last 
week, but I think I am like many Americans who say I believe Dr. Ford's 
testimony. I thought she was both credible and persuasive, and I wrote 
the following earlier this week in an op-ed in the Philadelphia 
Inquirer dated October 2, in describing part of her testimony, the 
``details of a sexual assault she experienced as a 15-year-old''--that 
made an impression on Americans, of course. Then, I went on to say: 
``the terror she felt in that moment, the horror of the physical 
assault, and the psychological trauma of believing she might die.''
  I believe that testimony, and that alone is troubling enough when it 
comes to making a determination on this nomination.
  I was further concerned when I listened to the testimony of Judge 
Kavanaugh, concerned about his lack of judicial temperament--I think 
that is an understatement in that moment--and also whether or not he 
could be an impartial Justice based upon what he said in response to 
the allegations, and especially what he was saying about Democrats in 
the Senate.
  So I will vote no for several reasons, many of them outlined with 
regard to healthcare and disability policy. I will vote no on this 
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote no as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in a few moments we will vote to confirm 
Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is time.
  Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after 
they were nominated. Today marks the 90th day since President Trump 
nominated Judge Kavanaugh. So this is in line with the timeframe for 
previous Justices.
  What is different, though, about this nomination is the manifest 
unfairness in the way it was conducted and in the tone and behavior of 
some Senators, as well as the special interest groups that support 
them.
  This institution used to be known as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, but you wouldn't know it now on this nomination.
  The Senator from Maine said yesterday that we have hit rock bottom 
when it comes to the judicial confirmation process and, sadly, I 
agree--this, despite the heroic efforts of Senator Grassley, who along 
with his staff, has been magnificent as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  What precipitated this embarrassing period for the Senate was the 
intentional and deliberate withholding of Dr. Ford's allegations from 
the Judiciary Committee and Judge Kavanaugh until the 11th hour, and 
then publicly ambushing everyone else concerned.
  It has been a process that, in words that echo from another dark 
period for the Senate, the McCarthy hearings, has been cruel, reckless, 
and indecent, both to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.
  Still, despite these hijinks and the weaponization of the 
confirmation process, we bent over backwards to try to accommodate Dr. 
Ford once she said she wanted to come before the committee.
  We know she requested confidentiality as her allegations were 
investigated. She did not consent to nor authorize the release of her 
letter. She didn't want a public spectacle. Judiciary Committee staff 
even offered to fly to California on a bipartisan basis and interview 
her confidentially, but this offer was not even shared with her by her 
partisan lawyers. In other words, she said she never understood that 
offer was on the table. She thought the only way she could tell her 
story was

[[Page S6692]]

in the midst of the three-ring circus that that hearing became.
  But after the damage to her was done when her identity became known, 
we invited Dr. Ford to testify. She came and did so, and I respect and 
admire her courage. It could not have been easy. We listened 
respectfully to her story. We took it very seriously. We treated her 
the same way we would want our wives or daughters to be treated, and we 
tried to learn the facts--cold hard facts--as elicited by an expert in 
dealing with sexual assault cases.
  We all know after the hearing what that attorney told us because it 
became public. She said, as a prosecutor, she would never recommend 
charges under these circumstances because, in her view, there was no 
corroboration of Dr. Ford's account and there were inconsistencies in 
her story regarding the place, the time, and the people involved in 
relevant events. In other words, this was not a case of he said, she 
said. It was a case of she said, they said, including everyone Dr. Ford 
claimed was a witness. Not only was there no corroboration, but the 
alleged witnesses refuted her claim, including her best friend, Leland 
Keyser, who said she never met Brett Kavanaugh.
  Even after all of that, even after hiding information that should 
have been shared confidentially with the Judiciary Committee, even 
after the outrageous conduct by some Senators at the first hearing, 
intentionally violating committee rules and seeking delay after delay, 
even after that, we took another additional step to address any 
lingering concerns. The FBI lunched a supplemental background 
investigation. There are two words to note about this investigation: 
``supplemental'' and ``independent.'' It is supplemental because Judge 
Kavanaugh has had six other previous background investigations. This 
was the seventh. It is independent, because now opponents are saying: 
Well, the investigation was merely checking a box. It wasn't thorough 
or comprehensive enough.
  But that simply doesn't jibe with the facts. The FBI was told to 
investigate current credible allegations, and they had a free rein to 
contact anyone they wanted, and they contacted many of the people that 
our Democratic colleagues, Dr. Ford, and Ms. Ramirez themselves said 
were eyewitnesses or persons with relevant knowledge. I am talking 
about folks like Mark Judge and others.
  So opponents are trying to have it both ways: They demand an 
investigation but then badmouth it when it doesn't reveal what they 
hoped it would. Politics should not have and didn't dictate the terms 
of this supplemental background investigation. The FBI knows how to do 
its work, and now opponents of this nomination should accept its 
findings.
  But this has never been a search for the truth by Senators who had 
already announced their opposition to this nomination--some of them, 
even before Judge Kavanaugh was named. Rather, it has become a matter 
of delay, defeat, and destroy.
  I do believe the Senator from Arizona and others who joined in his 
request did us a great favor by insisting on the FBI supplemental 
background investigation. The American people can feel better that 
leads have been followed and exhausted for those still interested in a 
search for the facts.
  The American people now know that we took it upon ourselves to take 
one last step to dispel any doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to 
serve on the highest Court in the land, and now that step is complete. 
So to Senators Flake, Collins, and others who requested that 
supplemental background investigation, I say thank you.
  Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have been badly treated throughout 
this process. Dr. Ford has been treated less as a real person than as a 
poker chip in a card game. Her wishes for confidentiality were ignored, 
her letter was leaked, and her story was weaponized in a political 
ambush.
  This whole sad charade has likewise been unfair to Judge Kavanaugh. 
These allegations could and should have been investigated by the 
committee under normal procedures and timelines designed to protect 
both the accuser and the accused. Instead, we got mob rule.
  Some blame Judge Kavanaugh for his righteous indignation and 
impassioned defense at the second hearing, but as somebody who served 
for 13 years on the bench myself, I know the difference between 
deciding a case as a judge for which Judge Kavanaugh's temperament has 
been universally praised and defending oneself against character 
assassination and personal destruction. Judge Kavanaugh understands the 
difference, too, and I have no doubt whatsoever about his judicial 
temperament.
  Imagine what this has been like for Judge Kavanaugh's parents or his 
wife or his children or the friends and colleagues who know the real 
Brett Kavanaugh--shocking or embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it. 
I am disappointed more than I can say at those who have unleashed these 
unjustified attacks on the judge and his family and disappointed in 
their lack of any empathy or remorse for what they have put them 
through--no empathy, no remorse, none.
  For some of them, it seems the end justifies the means. Chew good 
people up, spit them out. No problem. All in a day's work.
  After the dust settles on this dark period, we need to think about 
the damage all of this has done to the Senate as an institution and to 
the judicial confirmation process that we most certainly will embark 
upon again in the near future.
  It is my hope--it is my prayer--that the politics of personal 
destruction, simply because you don't agree with the nominee's judicial 
philosophy or the President who nominated him or her, will stop. The 
low road is not available to us anymore because there is no lower road 
than the one we have been on.
  It is my hope that some of the tactics we have seen--intimidation, 
bullying, violating the rules, taunting Members, trying to coerce them 
through bribes, carpet bombing them with TV ads, sending them coat 
hangers in the mail, screaming at them in the hallway--these cannot 
become the new normal. So we cannot reward those tactics. I guarantee 
that if these tactics had succeeded in blocking Judge Kavanaugh, they 
would become the new normal, and that ought to chasten all of us. I 
hope we have learned a painful lesson these last few weeks and will 
strive to do better. I pledge my good faith and best efforts to do so 
and to try to help.
  We should recall the not-so-distant past when Ruth Ginsburg, the 
former counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, was confirmed by 
a vote of 96 to 3; when Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 
0; and John Paul Stevens was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0 as well. In 
a rational, logical world, Judge Kavanaugh should have similarly 
lopsided numbers; that is, if people were willing to get past their 
tribalism and look at our nominee's record, look at over the 300 
opinions he has authored, the decisions he has authored that the 
Supreme Court has unanimously embraced. If they would look at his 
scholarship, talk to his former colleagues and law clerks, if opponents 
were willing to do that honestly and thoroughly, they would have found 
a brilliant individual who cuts no corners in his legal analysis, who 
lets the chips fall where they may, and respects the very important but 
limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional system.
  In my view, a vote against Judge Kavanaugh is an endorsement of the 
way the opponents have mishandled and abused the confirmation process, 
as well as the shameful intimidation tactics they employed.
  A ``no'' vote neglects all the man is and all he has accomplished 
based on unproven accusations about adolescent conduct. It justifies 
the manipulation and mistreatment of people like Dr. Ford for political 
gain. It would establish a dangerous precedent and legitimize mob rule, 
including the presumption of guilt in violation of everything in our 
Constitution--
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the Galleries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it would establish a dangerous precedent.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  As a reminder to our guests in the Galleries, expressions of approval 
or

[[Page S6693]]

disapproval are not permitted in the Senate Galleries.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it would establish a dangerous precedent 
and legitimize mob rule, including the presumption of guilt, in 
violation of everything our Constitution and fundamental notions of 
fairness that we stand for.
  Some say we are a nation divided, but I am not so pessimistic as 
some. I actually hope we can all learn, we must learn, I believe, from 
this cruel, reckless, and indecent episode, but a ``no'' vote will not 
unite us; it will help reward despicable tactics and set a new ugly 
precedent. It will only encourage the spurning of tradition and agreed-
upon rules, norms, and process. We should not ignore, we cannot 
acquiesce in or condone what has happened here. We should send a 
message loud and clear that the U.S. Senate will not be intimidated.
  I will cast my vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant At Arms will restore order to the 
Galleries.
  The Sergeant at Arms will restore order to the Galleries.
  As a reminder to our guests in the Galleries, expressions of approval 
or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate Galleries.
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me say at the outset that I would like to set the record straight 
on the question of the FBI interview, which has been raised repeatedly 
by Members on the other side of the aisle.
  It was our request from the start, when we heard the complaints of 
Dr. Ford and her allegations, that there be a thorough FBI 
investigation. On the Democratic side, we asked for that repeatedly 
from the Republican majority. It wasn't until Senator Flake and some of 
his Republican colleagues made a point of saying they wouldn't move to 
go forward without the FBI investigation that it finally was agreed to.
  Let me also add that statements have been made publicly by the public 
spokesman at the White House about how the witnesses were chosen for 
this FBI investigation. According to Mr. Shah, who works in the White 
House, he told us that a list of witnesses was sent by Senate 
Republicans to the White House, and they were included in their 
request. That is not the investigation we were looking for. We were 
hoping the FBI would revert to its professional status and interview 
all of the witnesses who are relevant. Certainly, among those relevant 
witnesses would have been Dr. Ford herself who could have been 
questioned under penalty of criminal prosecution if she misled or lied 
to the FBI, who could have provided substantial corroborative 
information. She was never called on. Neither was Judge Kavanaugh by 
the FBI.
  Dr. Ford provided eight different witnesses whom she thought should 
be called to back up her side of the story, not a single one of them 
was called by the FBI. Ms. Ramirez suggested 20 witnesses be called on 
by the FBI on her behalf, and not one of them was called.
  This was not the FBI investigation which we sought, nor does it clear 
the charges against Kavanaugh that were raised by Dr. Ford. In fact, it 
was a scant interview that involved some 10 witnesses in a matter of 
just a few days with a limited roster of people who were going to be 
questioned.
  Let me speak to the matter at hand in a larger context. I have been 
in public life for a few years, but I have never seen the public 
reaction to this particular nomination and the hearings leading up to 
it that I have seen in this case.
  I went back to Illinois last week on Friday. Before I could get off 
the airplane at Midway Airport, people were talking to me--just 
passengers at random, about what had happened the day before with Dr. 
Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testifying before our committee. The same 
thing happened with cab drivers, the doorman at the hotel holding an 
umbrella in the rain and talking to me about the testimony that was 
given to the Judiciary Committee. For the next 3 days, everywhere I 
turned, every person had a comment to make. America was tuned in and 
watching carefully because they knew how important this hearing was. It 
wasn't just the nomination for someone to serve on the Supreme Court. 
It was critically important to Americans to know who would be that 
person, what their views were when it came to the health of women, the 
protection of our health insurance, our privacy, our right to vote. It 
also was very clear that we held this hearing in the context of a 
national debate on sexual harassment and sexual violence. Is it any 
surprise that this explosive issue, which has touched corporate 
boardrooms, our churches, sports, Congress, has now been raised in our 
debate over a nomination to our highest Court?
  I ask my colleagues: Is there a single one of us in the last 2 weeks 
who has not had an experience with someone coming forward, either in 
writing or in person, to tell you of their experience when it came to 
sexual harassment and sexual violence?
  Just a few minutes ago, I read the latest letters we received in our 
office. Two women from my State of Illinois told me in their letters 
they were saying for the first time what actually happened to them many 
years ago and how much they identified with Dr. Ford and what she had 
gone through. That is a fact of life.
  The fact that this touched a nerve with so many Americans, and 
particularly women who have gone through this experience, should put 
this whole debate in context. It should not be cheapened or lessened by 
political charges. We ought to understand the gravity of this debate in 
light of the cultural change we are now facing in America.
  This afternoon, we have reached that day of reckoning. Those of us 
who count votes for a living know how this will end, but I want to make 
it clear there is something we need to remember. One of the closest 
votes in the history of the Supreme Court will occur this afternoon 
with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. One has to go back 137 years in 
American history to find a closer vote for a Supreme Court Justice. 
That portrays the seriousness with which this matter has been 
considered and undertaken by Members of the Senate and how divided we 
are on this nomination.
  I want to ask my colleagues not just to reflect on this afternoon but 
to reflect on tomorrow. What about the future of this Supreme Court and 
this important critical institution in our Constitution?
  Six years ago, in the days before the NFIB v. Sebelius decision 
deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act, a Pew Research poll 
showed that the public approval of the Supreme Court had reached an 
all-time low. Citizens United and Bush v. Gore had branded the Supreme 
Court as a political tool in the eyes of most Americans. Chief Justice 
Roberts stepped in and wrote a decision in that case which infuriated 
conservatives but brought momentary credibility to the Court.
  Filling this critical Kennedy vacancy with Judge Kavanaugh will again 
raise the question about Supreme Court politics.
  Chief Justice Roberts, are you watching?
  What can we expect from this newest Member of the Court, Brett 
Kavanaugh? After his contentious nomination process, Clarence Thomas 
gave us 10 years of brooding silence on the Bench of the Supreme Court. 
What can we expect from this new Justice? Will he be the soup kitchen 
volunteer or the Federalist Society favorite?
  Will he be the man who raged at the Clintons and promised revenge for 
his ordeal or the judge who impressed Senator Collins as more moderate 
than most of us on this side of the aisle ever found him?
  Will he be a Justice forever grateful to President Trump who 
nominated him, or a Justice who honors the rule of law more than any 
political leader or political party?
  And what about this Senate? What should the next Supreme Court 
vacancy look like? Will we continue to follow the Merrick Garland plow-
it-through playbook of judicial appointments at any cost, freezing out 
a nominee to the Supreme Court for almost 1

[[Page S6694]]

year, abandoning the blue-slip process in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, ignoring American Bar Association ratings, overturning rules 
protecting debate, concealing documents, tweeting confidential 
background investigation reports? When we sweep aside all of the rules 
and traditions of the Senate Judiciary Committee just to pile up more 
and more Republican appointments to the Court, what is left?
  Thomas More, in ``A Man for All Seasons,'' said famously:

       And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round 
     on you, where would you hide . . . the laws all being flat?
       And if you cut them down . . . do you really think you 
     could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

  So will we establish and reestablish rules and procedures that show 
mutual respect for one another as Senators and respect for this body we 
are honored to serve? I sincerely hope that conversation begins and 
begins soon.
  I want to say a word about the leaders on the Judiciary Committee. 
Chuck Grassley is my friend. He has been my friend for a long time. We 
do a lot of legislation together. We have a difference of political 
views. He is a loyal Republican; I am a loyal Democrat. We have 
adjoining States, and we find some things that we can work on in 
common. I want to say personally to Senator Grassley: Thank you for 
your leadership on this committee. I think there are moments when the 
White House and even your staff got the best of you. But I trust Chuck 
Grassley in terms of where this committee is going. You have it within 
your power to restore the traditions of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
and I hope that you will. I will join you in that effort.
  I want to say a word about Dianne Feinstein too. She has been the 
subject of more attacks by my colleagues than I have ever heard any 
Member face in the Senate. It is just not fair. Dianne Feinstein is a 
woman of integrity. She is a person who is caring, and she has given a 
major part of her life in public service at so many different levels.
  Some of the charges and innuendo that I have heard on the floor of 
the Senate are unbefitting this body, and she does not deserve them. I 
thank Senator Collins yesterday for specifically saying that in her 
remarks. I couldn't be more happy than to join her in those comments.
  I want to say a word about protesting and mob rule. I will tell you 
that if you believe in freedom of speech and our right as citizens to 
petition our government, then you accept some tough consequences. There 
are things that are said and done in the name of free speech that you 
may not agree with. Violence is never acceptable; let me make that 
clear. But the decision that is about to be made in the United States 
is not being made by a mob. It is not mob rule. It is a decision made 
by men and women of the Senate who are acting in accordance with the 
U.S. Constitution.
  One last point on the subject--this is one that I always remind my 
colleagues and even my opponents of. I believe the hottest ring in hell 
is reserved for those who attack our children and our families. If you 
want to take me out on an issue, so be it. Leave my family, my kids 
alone. That ought to be a rule on both sides of the aisle.
  There is another issue we need to face squarely: Will victims of 
sexual violence be more or less likely to step forward and tell their 
stories after this high-profile political battle ends?
  To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to your husband and your children: I 
will never forget your brave testimony last Thursday. You gave new 
meaning to the term civic duty. You spoke not just for yourself but for 
millions of sexual violence victims who will never ever have that 
opportunity. I am sorry--genuinely sorry--for the pain that you and 
your family endured. And I am sorry you were mocked by President Trump 
at his rally in Mississippi last Tuesday.
  The Washington Post reported:

       The President laid into Ford with the ruthlessness of an 
     attack dog and the pacing of a stand-up comedian. The crowd 
     roared with laughter and applause.

  No one could have been surprised with the President's performance. 
And when I hear repeated over and over again on the other side of the 
aisle ``We wanted to treat her just as we would have our wife or our 
daughter to be treated,'' that certainly didn't happen when it came to 
the President's comments. We owe it to our wives, daughters, 
granddaughters, and all the women and men in this country who have been 
victimized to treat them with respect, not ridicule. We owe it to these 
victims to listen, learn, and stand with them as they relive their 
shattering experiences.
  I believe the debate over this nomination has created a stronger 
force in our Nation for justice for victims of sexual violence, and I 
hope those who step forward know that they are not alone. Thank you for 
your courage.
  Tomorrow is another day. We are blessed to live in a democracy that 
protects our freedoms and gives our citizens the last word at the 
polling place.
  Today, I will cast my vote in the Senate in opposition to the 
nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent 
that following my remarks and those of Senators Schumer and McConnell, 
all postcloture time be considered expired on this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come one final time in support of 
Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to serve as Associate Justice of the 
United States Supreme Court.
  Democratic leaders did everything in their power to make Judge 
Kavanaugh's confirmation about anything except his judicial record and 
his outstanding academic qualifications. The Democratic leaders 
promised to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation from day one and use 
every play in the book to accomplish that goal.
  Even though the Senate had access to more of Judge Kavanaugh's 
records than we have had for any other Supreme Court nominee, 
Democratic leaders tried to bury the Judiciary Committee in mountains 
of irrelevant paperwork.
  When routine process arguments failed, they resorted to outright 
character assassination of the judge. Their smear campaign featured 
baseless allegations of perjury and claims that, as a teenager, he 
participated in gang rapes of women.
  I have been around long enough to see ugly leftwing smear campaigns 
against Supreme Court nominees, but this was beyond the pale--even 
beyond Judge Thomas and Anita Hill, and I was there.
  I am encouraged that most of my colleagues had the courage to stand 
against the politics of personal destruction. Ignored in the media 
circus that the Democratic leaders created was Judge Kavanaugh's 
extraordinary record as a judge and also as a citizen.
  I have said from the day the President announced Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination on July 9 that Judge Kavanaugh is quite possibly the most 
qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He has spent 25 
years of his career at the highest levels of government, including the 
last 12 years as a judge on the second most important Federal court.
  Judge Kavanaugh's record on the DC Circuit has been outstandingly 
remarkable. On a court containing some of the brightest legal minds, 
Judge Kavanaugh has set himself apart. The Supreme Court, in at least 
12 separate cases, adopted positions advanced in Judge Kavanaugh's 
lower court opinions.
  As the liberal law professor, Amar, wrote in the New York Times:

       Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; 
     great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge 
     Kavanaugh's most important ideas and arguments . . . have 
     found their way into the Supreme Court opinions.

  Judge Kavanaugh will not only bring his keen intellect and deep 
knowledge of the law to the Supreme Court; he will bring some other 
very important judicial characteristics as well. First among these is a 
proper understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional 
system. He knows that a judge should interpret and apply law as 
written, not how he wishes it were written. As we all know, it is 
Congress's job to write the laws, not judges'.
  He has explained in numerous cases that the fundamental goal of the 
separation of powers under our constitutional system is the protection 
of individual liberty. He has interpreted the

[[Page S6695]]

Constitution according to text, history, and tradition, not his own 
personal views. That is exactly the type of a person we need on the 
Supreme Court.
  Judge Kavanaugh has also demonstrated judicial independence and 
courage. In the 2 years after he was appointed to the DC Circuit by 
President George W. Bush, he ruled against Bush administration agencies 
on 23 cases. So don't let anybody tell you that he is obligated to 
President Trump. We can expect that Justice Kavanaugh will be beholden 
to no one and nothing except the Constitution.
  Judge Kavanaugh also has a well-earned reputation for collegiality. 
He has an excellent relationship with all of his colleagues on the DC 
Circuit, and his judicial record demonstrates the same.
  Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh was in the majority in 97 percent of the 
cases that he participated in on that DC Circuit. His Democratic-
appointed colleagues were as likely to join majority opinions written 
by Judge Kavanaugh as his Republican-appointed colleagues were. He will 
bridge the divide on the Supreme Court.
  Judge Kavanaugh has also shown a dedication to public service, to 
mentorship, and to diversity. He spent all but 3 years of his legal 
career in public service. Judge Kavanaugh is a proven mentor to law 
students and young lawyers.
  Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at Harvard Law School and other 
top law schools for many years. The Senate Judiciary Committee received 
a letter in support of his confirmation from these former students. 
They wrote:

       We may have differing views on political issues surrounding 
     the confirmation process, but we all agree on one thing: 
     Judge Kavanaugh is a rigorous thinker, a devoted teacher, and 
     a gracious person.

  Federal judges also play a very important role in mentoring the next 
generation of lawyers by hiring law clerks. Judge Kavanaugh has clearly 
taken seriously this mentorship role. His former law clerks submitted a 
letter to this committee strongly supporting his confirmation.
  I quote from that letter:

       It was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be 
     mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity 
     of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his 
     family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks.

  One of the areas in which Judge Kavanaugh has had a particular impact 
is in his commitment to diversity. More than half of his law clerks 
have been female. When confirmed to the Supreme Court, his class of law 
clerks will be all female--for the first time in the history of the 
Supreme Court.
  Judge Kavanaugh's female law clerks sent the committee a letter, 
which reads:

       We know all too well that women in the workplace still face 
     challenges, inequality, and even harassment. Among other 
     things, women do not enjoy a representative share of 
     prestigious clerkships or high-profile legal positions, but 
     this committee and the American public more broadly should be 
     aware of the important work Judge Kavanaugh has done to 
     remedy those disparities. In our view, the judge has been one 
     of the strongest advocates in the Federal judiciary for women 
     lawyers.

  As I think about history, it leads me to this: The confirmation of 
Judge Kavanaugh is particularly meaningful to me. Thirty-one years ago, 
leftwing groups and their Senate allies fired the opening shots in the 
judicial confirmation wars. They engaged, at that time, in 
unprecedented character assassinations against President Reagan's 
nominee, Judge Robert Bork.
  Since then, they have only escalated this war--slandering several 
Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and expanding their tactics to 
lower court nominees. So then, as history tells us, more than three 
decades later, leftwing groups and their Democratic allies in this body 
went back to the very same playbook. They tried the very same character 
assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same 
seat that Judge Robert Bork was supposed to fill.
  They succeeded 31 years ago, but, this time, they failed. So I look 
forward to voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this afternoon and to 
greeting him as ``Justice Kavanaugh'' the next time I see him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I know that the Democratic leader is 
scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in 
between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, 
Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the floor to speak on her 
behalf, but too many other people had been speaking at that time. 
People had remarked on her comments and reflected on the fact that she 
had done her homework, and she, indeed, had. I, simply, wanted to relay 
this anecdote.
  When I helped to introduce Judge Kavanaugh to my fellow former 
Senators, former colleagues, I think of all of the meetings that we 
had, and many of them were lawyers who are Senators. Probably the most 
thorough meeting of all was that held with Senator Collins. She had 
clearly done her homework, and the interview with Judge Kavanaugh 
consumed more than 2 hours without a break. It was a grilling that 
could have been done by any fine lawyer because she had clearly done 
her homework and was very well prepared, and I know she did further 
followup after that.
  I do want to commend her for the depth and the breadth of her 
comments. As the Wall Street Journal said this morning, she not only 
debated like it used to be done in this body--with evidence and sound 
reasoning--but also with a reference to our founding principles and the 
higher things that should motivate our public service and our 
discussions here on the Senate floor.
  So I wanted to take this opportunity to commend her for her remarks 
and to tell those who don't know her that this was par for the course. 
Her performance was magnificent, but it was not out of the ordinary for 
Senator Collins. I just wanted my colleagues to know that.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a short time, the Senate will take a 
final vote on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 
The road that led us here has been bitter, angry, and partisan, steeped 
in hypocrisy, hyperbole, resentment, and outrage.
  From start to finish, President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh 
to the U.S. Supreme Court has been one of the saddest moments in the 
history of the Senate. When the history of the Senate is written, this 
chapter will be a flashing red warning light of what to avoid. Truly, 
Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation is a low moment for the Senate, for the 
Court, and for the country.
  The Republican majority has conducted one of the least transparent, 
least fair, and most biased processes in Senate history, slanting the 
table from the very beginning to produce their desired result.
  Why do I say this? Because they withheld over 90 percent of the 
nominee's record from the Senate and the American people; because they 
refused to allow Dr. Ford to call a single corroborating witness at the 
hearing, including the only other eyewitness to the incident; because 
they refused to have an independent investigation of the facts before 
the hearing in order to inform the questioning; because they hired an 
outside prosecutor to question Dr. Ford, as if she were on trial; 
because the White House kept the FBI investigation on a short leash, 
dictating the scope and even the kinds of questions the FBI was allowed 
to ask; because Republican Senators, sensing after Dr. Ford's testimony 
that a debate about the truth and facts was not working, adopted a 
cynical new strategy to shout, pound the table, and portray Judge 
Kavanaugh as the helpless victim of some unseen partisan conspiracy; 
because the President of the United States, stooping to new depths--
even for him--chose to stand before a crowd of thousands and cruelly 
ridicule a survivor of sexual assault; and because this grossly 
distorted, biased, and unfair process, run by the Republican majority, 
the Senate is about

[[Page S6696]]

to elevate a nominee who doesn't belong on the Nation's highest Bench.
  Now, why doesn't Judge Kavanaugh belong on the Bench in the Nation's 
highest Court? Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he 
obscured his views, shrouding his jurisprudence in smoke so thick that 
the American people would never know what he really believed.
  Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he was chosen by 
a President and a far-right organization, both dedicated to overturning 
and undermining Roe v. Wade, and he did not a thing to refute the 
presumption that he would want to overturn it too.
  Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he was chosen by 
far-right organizations that are bent on repealing healthcare 
protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, and he did 
nothing to refute the presumption that he would too.
  Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he believes 
Presidents should not be subject to investigations of any kind while in 
office--a distortion of our founding principle that no person is above 
the law.
  Judge Kavanaugh does not belong on the Bench because his 
jurisprudence is deeply skeptical of environmental protections, 
consumer protections, workers' rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, 
rights of treaties and agreements with Native Americans, and a host of 
other hard-earned rights.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he 
has repeatedly misled the Senate, putting into serious doubt his 
credibility. A judge must be credible, believable, and honest, above 
all.
  Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because he is an extreme 
partisan--something we have seen from his earliest days in his career 
and reconfirmed when he gave one of the bitterest, most partisan 
testimonies ever presented by a nominee.
  Judge Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the Bench because of his 
injudicious demeanor. His partisan screed will go down ignominiously in 
history and make it clear that it would be virtually impossible for him 
to rule impartially on the Supreme Court. Judges must be temperate, 
judicious, and evenhanded. Judge Kavanaugh is anything but.
  Republican leaders knew before he was nominated that Judge Kavanaugh 
was a very flawed choice, but once President Trump selected him, 
Republicans decided they had to rush him through. They became a 
steamroller over truth, fairness, and our traditions of bipartisan 
cooperation--any means necessary to reach their desired end. They 
blamed Dr. Ford and Democrats for Judge Kavanaugh's flaws.
  They were intent on shrouding the truth, because they knew that if 
the truth came to light, Judge Kavanaugh would be exposed as a truly 
flawed nominee.
  So, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, what is the appropriate 
response?
  Our country needs to have a reckoning on these issues, and there is 
only one remedy. Change must come from where change in America always 
begins--the ballot box.
  So to Americans, to so many millions who are outraged by what 
happened here, there is one answer: Vote.
  If you believe Dr. Ford and other brave women who came forward and 
you want to vindicate their sacrifice, vote.
  If you believe the Supreme Court should uphold women's rights, vote.
  If you believe the Supreme Court must protect healthcare and our 
preexisting conditions that are protected now, vote.
  If you believe the Supreme Court should defend workers, consumers, 
the environment, civil rights, and Native populations, vote.
  If you believe the Supreme Court should be a check on an overreaching 
President, vote.
  If you believe the process here in the Senate was a sham and you 
believe Americans deserve better, vote.
  If you believe that Supreme Court Justices should conform to the 
highest standards of character, impartiality, temperament and, above 
all, honesty and credibility, vote.
  I understand and I share the deep anguish that millions of Americans 
are experiencing today, but I say to you, my fellow Americans, there is 
one answer: Vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, ``the Constitution of the United States 
was made not merely for a generation that then existed, but for 
posterity.''
  Those are the words of Henry Clay, Kentucky's own. They underscore 
that the decision U.S. Senators will make today will echo in the 
history of our Nation.
  The very survival of our constitutional form of government requires 
an expert and independent judiciary. Without fair and impartial 
``courts of justice,'' as Alexander Hamilton put it in the Federalist 
Papers, ``all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would 
amount to nothing.''
  The courts guard our rights and the Senate guards our courts. That is 
why today is such an important day. That is why the vote we take this 
afternoon--a vote to confirm a new Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States--represents one of the most consequential 
decisions a Senator ever makes.
  The Members of this body are duty bound to ensure we confirm Justices 
of the Supreme Court who are men and women of the highest character and 
the most superlative qualifications. Fortunately, that is just the sort 
of nominee who stands before us today.
  Twelve weeks ago, the President nominated a jurist who has been 
described by legal peers of all political stripes as ``a superstar'' 
and a ``serious scholar'' who is ``legendary for his preparation'' and 
possesses ``the qualifications, the temperament, and judicial 
philosophy to be an excellent Associate Justice.''
  The President nominated a brilliant student of the law. Those who 
taught and knew the nominee at Yale say ``it is hard to name anyone 
with judicial credentials as strong as Judge Kavanaugh.'' They describe 
a ``true intellectual,'' ``a leading thinker,'' and a ``wonderful 
mentor and teacher.''
  Those he has mentored--a diverse group of bright young lawyers who 
clerked for Judge Kavanaugh--talk about his work ethic, his 
``unflinchingly honest advice,'' and his ``fundamental humility.''
  For 12 weeks, the Senate has seen that this is not empty praise. We 
have seen the legendary preparation of a tireless judge. We have seen 
the patience of a committed mentor and teacher. We have seen the 
humility of a true intellectual who let his record speak for itself.
  Each of us has seen this for ourselves. Every Senator who came into 
this process with an open mind has seen that very same Brett Kavanaugh 
firsthand.
  We have seen his brilliance, his painstaking thoroughness on display 
in the 300-plus opinions he issued on the DC Circuit. For 12 years, 
Judge Kavanaugh excelled on the bench that many experts see as the 
second most important court in our Nation.
  We have seen his geniality and kindness firsthand in our private 
meetings with the nominee--precisely the collegial approach that is so 
necessary on the Court.
  We have seen his professional excellence as we reviewed more pages of 
documents pertaining to Judge Kavanaugh's career than for any other 
Supreme Court nomination in our history--pages that depict a meticulous 
and dedicated public servant. And, yes, we have now studied the results 
of seven--seven--FBI background investigations--inquiries that have 
produced no evidence whatsoever to corroborate any prior misconduct but 
rather are consistent with all we know about this nominee's sterling 
character.
  This historically tall mountain of evidence adds up to one clear 
message: Judge Brett Kavanaugh is among the very best our Nation has to 
offer. He will make the Senate and the country proud. He will serve 
with distinction on our highest Court.
  He unquestionably deserves confirmation and the country deserves such 
a Supreme Court Justice.
  Now, as I have explained, the stakes are always high--always high--
where a Supreme Court confirmation is concerned, but this time--this 
time--the stakes are higher--a lot higher than they have been in the 
past.
  I can't sum this up better than our friend and distinguished 
colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, put it in her historic 
remarks yesterday. This is

[[Page S6697]]

what the senior Senator from Maine said: ``It is when passions are most 
inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.'' She said, ``when passions 
are most inflamed'' is when ``fairness is most in jeopardy.''
  We all know that the events of recent weeks have strained the 
country's comity and fanned the flames of partisan discord. But, even 
more critically, our very commitment to the basic principles of 
fairness and justice is also being tested. The basic principles of 
fairness and justice are being tested right here.
  A vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh today is also a vote to send a 
clear message about what the Senate is.
  This is an institution where the evidence and the facts matter. This 
is an institution where the evidence and the facts matter. This is a 
Chamber in which the politics of intimidation and personal destruction 
do not win the day.
  This is the body whose Members themselves uphold the same commitment 
to American justice that we seek in the judges we examine.
  A vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh today is a vote to end this brief, 
dark chapter in the Senate's history and to turn the page toward a 
brighter tomorrow.
  The Chamber we are privileged to occupy is often called the world's 
greatest deliberative body for good reason. We are called the world's 
greatest deliberative body for a good reason. When the rubber meets the 
road, when the hour is critical, when a historic precedent needs to be 
set, the U.S. Senate most often finds its way to doing what is right.
  Today, we can honor that history. We can vote to turn away from the 
darkness. We can vote to set a precedent about fairness and judgment 
that will define this body for the better. We can vote to confirm an 
excellent Supreme Court Justice who will make the Senate and the 
American people proud.
  I yield the floor.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. As a reminder to our guests in the Galleries, 
expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate 
Gallery.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Gallery.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
Senate.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Montana (Mr. Daines).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Daines
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
Gallery.
  The clerk may resume.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
Gallery.
  The clerk will continue.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
Gallery.
  The clerk may continue.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my friend, the Senator from Montana, 
Senator Daines who is walking his daughter down the aisle this 
afternoon, if he were present and voting, he would have voted aye. I 
have voted no. The pair will not change the outcome of the vote. I 
therefore withdraw my vote.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, how am I recorded?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator is not recorded.
  Mr. CARPER. Carper votes no.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. As a reminder to our guests in the gallery, 
expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate 
gallery.
  On this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are 48. The nomination of 
Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, is confirmed.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the 
Gallery.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________