Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, let me say that all of our hearts go out to everyone affected by the terrible wildfires in California and, once again, express how grateful we are to the first responders and firefighters, those brave people on the scene. We continue to monitor the situation, and the Senate will do everything it can to help.

Now, let me welcome everybody back after the midterm elections.

Last week, Americans voted in record numbers to deliver an unambiguous message: They wanted a change. People across the country were disappointed in what 2 years of one-party Republican rule had delivered: rising healthcare costs and declining quality, a massive giveaway of public resources to multinational corporations and to the wealthiest few, and a Congress that failed to provide a check and balance on the President. So the American people voted for a change. They voted for a check on President Trump and a Congress that would stop trying to take away their healthcare.

After 2 long years, that is what they will get. Republican plans to rip healthcare away from Americans has been stymied.

Democrats won the House of Representatives decisively. Democrats flipped several Governors and State legislatures. Here in the Senate, Democratic candidates did extraordinarily well with a very difficult map. Overall, last Tuesday night was a very good night for Democrats. But more importantly, it was a very good night for America and for beginning to restore some normalcy to our Nation's governance.

This afternoon, let me welcome the new Republican Senators and the two new Democratic Senators, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona--the women of the West--with whom I met this morning. Both are highly accomplished. Both are tough and incredibly bright and principled but also pragmatic. I assure you that they will both make excellent, effective Senators. I could not be more pleased to welcome them to this Chamber.

But now that the hard-fought midterm campaign is over, we must turn the page and see what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish together for the American people. In the lameduck session, we will consider legislation dealing with the Coast Guard and wrap up the appropriations process. Then, in January, the House and Senate will come back with new legislators and new priorities.

One item can't wait, though, until January. Last week, President Trump asked for the resignation of his once best friend, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and announced that Matthew Whitaker, the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, would become the Acting Attorney General. Even though Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, already confirmed by the Senate, was next in line for the title of Acting Attorney General under the Department of Justice's succession statute, President Trump took the highly unusual step of naming another person to the job, Mr. Whitaker, who has not been confirmed by the Senate for any job in the Justice Department.

First and foremost, there are serious questions about whether or not Mr. Whitaker's appointment is even constitutional, considering the requirement for Senate confirmation in article II of the Constitution. But in addition to very serious questions about the appointment itself, Americans should be very concerned about the appointee, Mr. Whitaker, and what he might mean for the special counsel's investigation.

It is amazing. Mr. Whitaker claims that Russia didn't interfere with our elections, contrary to the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies. When someone ignores the facts and just says these things, you know they are an ideologue. They are not trying to dispense justice or anything else down the middle. They are an ideologue. Seventeen intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in our elections. This is not about collusion--just whether they interfered, and Whitaker says no. He has called for ``pulling the reins back'' on the Russia investigation. That is hardly a neutral arbiter who is going to call the shots as they should be called, down the middle. He referred to Special Counsel Mueller and his staff as a ``lynch mob.''

When I saw General Flynn in the 2016 campaign, a three-star general, screaming: ``Lock her up,'' I thought: Something is wrong. A general shouldn't do that no matter what their political views are. When the Acting Attorney General refers to Special Counsel Mueller and his staff as a ``lynch mob,'' that is way over the top in a similar way, and Whitaker has openly mused about how to grind the investigation to a halt.

There is simply no question that Mr. Whitaker enters his role as Acting Attorney General with a clear bias against the Russia investigation. Essentially, Mr. Whitaker has prejudged the outcome of an investigation he now oversees. That is awful. That is not America. That is so highly political in a bad way.

In light of this, two things must happen. First, we are demanding that Mr. Whitaker recuse himself from the Russia investigation. On Sunday, I sent a letter, along with Leader Pelosi and top Democrats from both Houses in the relevant committees, to the Department of Justice's chief ethics officer explaining why Mr. Whitaker should be recused and requesting that the chief ethics officer notify Congress of what ethics guidance Mr. Whitaker has given.

We have heard that Mr. Whitaker is meeting with the ethics officials this week, and we expect that Congress will be notified about the results of those discussions.

Second, if Whitaker does not recuse himself, we Democrats are going to attempt to add legislation to the must-pass spending bill in the lameduck session that would prevent Acting Attorney General Whitaker from interfering with the Mueller investigation in any way. Judiciary Committee Democrats have also requested that Chairman Grassley schedule a hearing with Mr. Whitaker and former Attorney General Sessions. I support that request wholeheartedly.

Now, even if you don't believe that Mr. Whitaker poses a threat to the Mueller investigation, there are serious questions about whether his appointment is lawful or whether Mr. Whitaker has the experience, temperament, independence, fidelity, and rule of law required for such a vitally important position. Given that the Senate never confirmed him for his current role in the Justice Department, now is

the time to consider whether Mr. Whitaker is qualified for his new role as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Let's remember one thing: Democrats and Republicans alike have said that if President Trump interferes with the Russia investigation, we would be on the brink of a constitutional crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. Altering the chain of command in the Justice Department to put a partisan loyalist in charge of the investigation certainly feels like we may be heading down that road. Why not head the whole thing off at the pass? Mr. Whitaker can and should recuse himself and, regardless, the Senate should pass legislation to protect the integrity of the Russia investigation.

In conclusion, it is a far better thing to be safe than sorry when it comes to something as paramount as the rule of law and fidelity to the great Constitution of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, let me say to the people of Florida, Georgia, and everyone else affected by Hurricane Michael that our thoughts and hearts are with you. Having worked and lived through the recovery of Hurricane Sandy in my home State of New York, I remember vividly the anguish of families who lost their homes and businesses the day or two after and then realizing it took years for areas of New York and Long Island to recover. We are still in the process of recovering. I know, A, your pain and suffering and, B, the challenges that await you.

So we hope everyone stays safe as the storm passes through the country. We know that Americans and the Senate will pull together, as they always do, to help one another build and recover.

Madam President, this year has seen a huge number of powerful storms and hurricanes both on the Atlantic seaboard and in the gulf. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence, and now Michael have wrought severe damages. According to

NOAA, 2017 was the most expensive year on record for disasters in the United States. At some point, we have to acknowledge that the intensity of these storms is much greater than in past years and is a symptom of changing climate.

Climate change is real. It is being driven by human activity. It is happening right now. These are facts. They are not in dispute. Our scientists know it, our businesses know it, the world knows it, and the American people know it. But too many Senators on the other side of the aisle just put their heads in the sand. It costs us more and more and more. We are not going to leave these people high and dry, but if we would do more on climate change, we would have fewer of these hurricanes and other types of storms.

Everyone knows that, except a few. Why? Why don't they admit the truth? Maybe there are two words that explain it: oil industry.

Just this week the U.N. released a report on climate change, saying that the world has only a short time--maybe a little more than a decade--to get a handle on carbon emissions. So far, the current administration has done nothing but move the issue backward. It is amazing that we, the leading country that is supposed to be the moral force--the economic, political, and military leader--are the ones who pull out of the Paris climate accords, and then the administration has been repealing environmental protection after protection.

So while we are thinking about the people of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and everyone in Hurricane Michael's path, let's remember we are running out of time to do something about climate change. The kinds of storms we are seeing now will only increase if this body continues to keep its head in the sand ostrichlike and ignore the scientific realities.

Now, on another matter--healthcare--yesterday, 50 of my Republican colleagues voted against ensuring protections for people with preexisting conditions--people with asthma and cancer, people with diabetes and all kinds of gynecological problems. Republican Senators sided with the Trump administration to expand the ability of insurance companies to sell cutrate, junk insurance to Americans--to dupe Americans. These plans will destabilize the healthcare market and raise the cost of insurance for people with preexisting conditions who may end up being priced out of insurance altogether.

Let me say that again. Republicans yesterday voted to let insurance companies offer junk insurance plans that don't cover essential health benefits, allowing them to nickel-and-dime patients out of the medical care they deserve.

Our constituents--Democrats, Republicans, north, west, east, and south--say they want better healthcare at a lower cost, and what do Republicans do? They offer worse healthcare coverage at a higher cost, ultimately, to people, because the plans don't cover anything and then you have to pay out of your pocket.

What did they do it in the name of? Freedom. Freedom. This is like the 1890s. Who is going to have freedom? The insurance companies, the big shots. Who is going to have no freedom from illness and disease? Average folks. It is terrible thinking, once again siding with big, powerful special interests, not the average person.

The only people who want these junk insurance plans are two groups-- the insurance companies and the rightwing ideologues who believe the government shouldn't be in healthcare at all. They want to cut Medicare. They want to cut Medicaid. They want to cut Social Security. That is who it is.

So let us remember that the junk insurance plans are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. They lure consumers in with low premiums, but the deductibles are so high, the copays are so high, and the coverage so skimpy that the plans hardly offer any benefit to the consumer at all.

While every Republican save one voted to hand the keys to the insurance companies, every single Democrat--every single Democrat-- stood up to the sabotage from the Trump administration and voted to not allow the expansion of junk insurance across America.

I warn my colleagues that these are the kinds of issues that voters remember come election time. Healthcare is the No. 1 issue in America to the broad majority of voters. The American people will head to the polls in November and ask themselves: Which party will defend the people's right to quality healthcare? Which party will not?

The answer to that question could not be clearer. Democrats have spent the past 2 years offering several plans to reduce the cost of healthcare while maintaining or increasing the quality, while President Trump and Republicans in Congress have done nothing but drive costs up and quality down in obeisance to the big special interests--the insurance industry.

They have tried to repeal the healthcare law. They have tried to gut Medicaid, eliminate healthcare for millions of Americans, and put the insurers back in charge. They have eliminated the program to help low- and middle-income Americans afford insurance and, worst of all, Republican attorneys general--including two running for the Senate, one in Missouri and one in West Virginia--are suing, as we speak, to eliminate protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.

These actions are undergirded by a belief on the other side of the aisle that the American people just don't deserve help affording adequate healthcare. Republicans have believed, continue to believe, and have acted on, unfortunately, that insurance companies should rule the roost, just as in the 1890s. The consequences are severe.

As a result of the Republican healthcare agenda, premiums are up by double digits in several States and quality is down. As a result of the Republican healthcare agenda, Americans are paying more and getting less.

I say to the American people that in a few short weeks you will have a choice. You can vote for 2 more years of healthcare sabotage from a Republican Congress, more attempts at repealing the healthcare law, more premium increases and uncertainty, more actions that undermine protections for patients with preexisting conditions or the American people can vote to flip the script and support Democratic candidates who will not only protect the care that Americans have today but who will work every single day to make it better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Democrats have long believed that good healthcare for every American is a right, not a privilege. It is a tradition that was etched into our party by Presidents Roosevelt, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama. We believe it is wrong to allow insurers to discriminate against women, older Americans, and folks with preexisting conditions. We believe it is wrong to allow insurers to put a cap on your insurance or to offer insurance so threadbare that it hardly counts as insurance at all. People end up paying a lot of money for insurance, and then they find it doesn't cover anything or it has such a huge deductible that it does no good. That is why the Affordable Care Act prohibited these abuses by insurance companies.

Our Republican friends seem to want to say: The best way to get healthcare is to put yourself in the hands of your insurance company. We don't believe that. For the past 2 years, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have tried to wrench our country back to a time when all of these abuses and loopholes were commonplace, a time when insurance companies could do whatever they want. They have tried to repeal our healthcare law, gut Medicaid, and cause 20 million fewer Americans to have insurance. President Trump ended a program that helped low-income Americans to afford insurance. Congressional Republicans repealed the coverage requirement, causing an unnecessary and completely avoidable increase in premiums this year, and Republican attorneys general across the country--many now running for a seat in this Chamber--filed a lawsuit that would repeal protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Today on the floor, the Senate has the opportunity to put a stop to the relentless sabotage of our healthcare system. My friend and one of the great leaders in healthcare in this Chamber, Senator Baldwin, has put forward a motion to repeal the Trump administration's rule to expand short-term insurance plans. Short-term insurance plans lure consumers in with low rates but fail to provide adequate coverage. Many don't cover maternity care, mental health treatment, prescription drug costs, and more. These plans are junk insurance, period--no ands, ifs, or buts--junk.

We prohibited them in the past. This administration wants to let these junk insurance plans run rampant and let people be duped into thinking they have insurance when it covers almost nothing. There are massive risks to any family who purchases them, and, worse, they cause rates to go up for everyone else, even those who don't elect to buy one. That is why traditionally nonpartisan organizations, like the American Cancer Society, the AARP, and the American Lung Association, have come out in staunch opposition. The AARP, for instance, says that junk insurance ``would force millions of older Americans to choose either inadequate coverage or comprehensive coverage that is unaffordable.''

Now, my Republican friends say they support these plans because they give Americans another choice, but if you ask Americans: Would you like the option to purchase a faulty product, I don't think many would say yes. Do we want a choice of buying a car where the engine doesn't go? Of course not, that is the 1890s. We have changed for the better, and people are protected.

So this vote is not about giving Americans a choice. It is about whether or not we would allow insurance companies to scam Americans with cut-rate health insurance. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that vote. An abundance of public opinion shows that healthcare is the No. 1 issue to voters. My Republican friends have desperately tried to make it more unaffordable, harder to access. Meanwhile, the one significant legislative item passed by the Republican Congress this year, the tax bill, is under water in the polls. It is hard to make a tax cut unpopular, but this one is because so much of it goes to the wealthy.

Republican leaders just rammed through one of the least popular Supreme Court Justices in history.

In a few short weeks, the American people will head to the polls, where they can vote for another 2 years of Republican attempts to gut our healthcare system or they can vote for Democratic candidates who can safeguard the protections now in place and

work to make healthcare more affordable.

I see my friend from Wisconsin. I want to thank her for her outstanding leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, well, now that the Senate has concluded its very divisive debate about the Supreme Court, it is time to talk about the No. 1 issue to the American people: healthcare. We begin that debate tomorrow, when the Senate will take up a Democratic motion to repeal the Trump administration's effort to expand short-term insurance plans.

Let me be clear. These so-called short-term plans are junk insurance. Short-term plans are junk insurance. People who buy them are going to be extremely disappointed because they bait the consumer in with low prices but hardly cover anything. They might not cover maternity care, mental health care, prescription drugs--you name it. Even worse, the plans draw consumers out of the health insurance market, making it more expensive for everyone else to purchase insurance, especially more expensive for those with preexisting conditions.

That is why so many prominent patient and consumer groups have filed a lawsuit against the administration's rule to expand these junk plans. Groups like the American Cancer Society, the AARP, the Lung Association, the Diabetes Association, and others that represent millions of Americans with preexisting conditions have clearly said that this is sabotage--sabotage--of the insurance market and will drive up costs for millions of Americans.

So Senator Baldwin has introduced a CRA disapproval resolution--a resolution brought under the Congressional Review Act--to repeal this fundamentally misguided policy from the Trump administration. All of my colleagues should vote for this, but I suspect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a different idea because ever since taking control of Congress and the Presidency, Republicans have deliberately, relentlessly undermined Americans' healthcare.

This particular policy is part of a long campaign to sabotage our healthcare system. Remember, nearly every Republican was silent when President Trump canceled the program that helped low-income Americans afford insurance. Remember, every Republican was silent when President Trump directed his administration to stop helping Americans sign up for the right policy. Remember, nearly every Republican was silent when President Trump's Justice Department refused to defend protections for preexisting conditions. A large number of Republican attorneys general--some running for the Senate right now--were part of the Trump administration's efforts to say it is just fine to get rid of protections for those with preexisting conditions. Remember, nearly every Republican voted to gut Medicaid, raise premiums on older Americans, repeal protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, and move us toward a future where 20 million fewer Americans have healthcare. Remember, every single Republican voted to repeal the coverage requirement and cause premiums to be much higher this year than they needed to be.

So Americans, when you are paying more for insurance and you hate it, when those deductibles go up, those copayments go up, and you say: Where is the insurance that was supposed to protect me? I have taken so much money out of my own pocket. It is hardly worth it. Look to the other side of the aisle, and look at what your Senators have done, if you come from a State where they represent you. As a result of the Republican sabotage, premiums are up, out-of-pocket costs are up, prescription drug costs are up, and the quality of insurance is down-- in many cases way down. Under this Republican President and this Republican Congress, Americans are paying more to get lower quality health insurance. Americans, under this President, this Congress, are paying more to get less when it comes to health insurance.

Protections for preexisting conditions are under assault in so many different ways. No wonder why, in poll after poll, Americans put healthcare as the No. 1 issue in the upcoming election. Tomorrow the Senate will have an opportunity to undo a portion of the Republican campaign to sabotage healthcare.

In November, the American people will have a golden opportunity to move our country in a dramatically different direction by voting for Democratic candidates who will work to improve our healthcare rather than so many of those Republican candidates who, in obeisance to the big insurance companies, work to destroy it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, from start to finish, President Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court will go down as one of the saddest, most sordid in the long history of the Federal judiciary.

The well was poisoned from the outset when President Trump selected Judge Kavanaugh from a list of names preapproved by hard-right special interest groups for whom the national interest is a trifling concern compared to repealing Roe v. Wade, cutting people's healthcare, and achieving a partisan majority on the Supreme Court. The rot worsened when the Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee shielded the bulk of Judge Kavanaugh's records from the public, discarding decades of bipartisan precedent and thwarting norms of transparency and fairness. Finally, the dam broke under the weight of credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault in high school.

In 2018, the Republican majority conducted a hearing that made the Anita Hill hearings in 1991 look fair by comparison. At this hearing, there were no corroborating witnesses on either side and no independent investigation of the facts to inform the questioning. They even hired an outside counsel to put a witness, Dr. Ford, on trial. Only at the eleventh-hour urging of breakaway Members of their caucus, Republicans submitted, reluctantly, to a 1-week investigation of the allegations-- an investigation which was then severely circumscribed by the White House.

Our Republican friends blame us for this process. They are always finding a straw man. But nothing could be further from the truth. First, they blame us for delay, knowing full well that Majority Leader McConnell has complete control of when nominees are brought to the floor. Leader McConnell could have moved this nominee 2 weeks ago or 1 week ago. Democrats had no say--and don't--when it comes to what is scheduled for floor debate. But in each case, Leader McConnell couldn't move the nominee forward because he was blocked by fellow Republicans-- not Democrats--from moving forward. When it comes to complaining about delay, two words never come from our Republican friends' lips: ``Merrick Garland.''

Republicans are also saying that we engaged in ``a smear campaign'' or the ``politics of personal destruction'' with this nomination. In reality, again, they are using Democrats as a straw man, because what they are really talking about is what Dr. Ford said. Democrats did not induce her to come forward; her conscience did. Are our Republican friends accusing Dr. Ford and her deeply held memories of what happened to her of a smear campaign? Are they accusing Dr. Ford of a smear campaign, of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? Because that is who they are actually blaming. They are decrying her testimony and then trying to blame Democrats. I don't blame them--they have a flawed nominee. They don't want the focus on the nominee.

When future Americans look back at these proceedings, let them draw no lessons from the Senate's conduct here. Let them look back on this chapter as the shameful culmination of the scorched-earth politics practiced by the hard right in America--people who will stop at nothing to entrench an advantage on our Nation's courts. Let the confirmation process for Judge Kavanaugh be recorded as a sorry epilogue to the brazen theft of Justice Scalia's seat, the ignominious end of bipartisan cooperation and consultation on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. And for what? For whom were Senate Republican leaders willing to discard all semblance of fairness to confirm? Judge Brett Kavanaugh--certainly a product of an elite education but also someone with a hard-right, conservative jurisprudence, far, far away from what average Americans believe.

Why most Democrats opposed his nomination at the outset feels like ancient history now, but let's not forget that, most importantly, we strongly disagree with a number of Judge Kavanaugh's views. He is deeply skeptical of unenumerated rights, including a woman's right to make fundamentally private decisions about her medical care. He is deeply skeptical of the government's role in protecting Americans with preexisting conditions. He is deeply skeptical of nearly all rules and regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment.

The flashing red warning sign at the center of Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence is his views on Executive power and accountability. Somehow, this conservative judge and scholar of the Constitution sees at the heart of American democracy a President-cum-King; an Executive who is unaccountable to the laws he is sworn to uphold; a head-of-state who, while in office, should be beyond the reach of subpoenas, criminal investigations, or civil investigations.

This moment in American history demands deep skepticism about Judge Kavanaugh's views on Executive power, nominated as he was by an Executive who disdains the constraints of his office and who is, at this very moment, the apparent subject of investigations his Supreme Court nominee believes should be invalid.

I met with Judge Kavanaugh for almost 2 hours, and I asked him about all of those issues. His answers were constantly evasive and utterly unsatisfactory. It was deja vu all over again in the first round of hearings, when Judge Kavanaugh deliberately avoided talking about his views on Roe, healthcare, Presidential accountability, and more. There was no legal reason, rule, or logic that prevented him from being clear and saying what he thought. He was evasive because he knows that his views are deeply at odds with the progress America has made over the last half century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most Americans believe. His performance was not only unfair and frustrating to the Senate, it was unfair to the American people. When a nominee refuses to disclose their views, chances are you have a nominee whose views are far outside the mainstream of America, whether they be far right or far left.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not have as grave a concern about these views as we do, but let no American be surprised if Judge Kavanaugh becomes a decisive vote to restrict the rights and privileges of the American people, while stretching the bounds of privilege for the current occupant of the White House.

Judge Kavanaugh's nomination ultimately does not only encompass questions of ideology or credentials but questions of character. Here again, Judge Kavanaugh falls woefully short of what Americans expect and deserve

in a Supreme Court Justice. He has repeatedly misled the Senate about his involvement in some of the most serious controversies of the Bush administration, including warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, our policy against torture, the theft of electronic records from Democratic Senators, and his involvement in the nomination of very controversial judges. Faced with credible allegations of various types of misconduct, Judge Kavanaugh's credibility was again tested, and he continued to dissemble and even prevaricate about easily refuted facts.

Beyond the issue of credibility, Judge Kavanaugh presented to the Senate the bitterest partisan testimony I have ever heard coming from a candidate seeking the Senate's approval, whether they be for the bench or the executive branch.

There are many who think that what happened when Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old should not be dispositive. Even if you believe that, his actions at age 53 in terms of demeanor, partisanship, and, above all, credibility, should be dispositive. Judges at every level of the Federal bench should be held to the highest standard of ethics and moral character. Judges at every level should be judicious and credible and independent but especially--especially--on the Supreme Court.

I do not see how it is possible for my colleagues to say with perfect confidence that Judge Kavanaugh has the temperament, independence, and credibility to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Why Judge Kavanaugh? There is no dictate that you have to march blindly forward with a nominee when there are others available to you. There are many judges whom I am sure conservatives would be happy to have on the Court. I would remind my colleagues, the seat that Brett Kavanaugh aspires to fill was held by a Justice who assumed the Bench after one nominee was voted down by the Senate and a second nominee withdrew his nomination. But the Republican majority has pressed forward blindly on Judge Kavanaugh, even when brave women came forward to speak truth to power. Why? For what cause? For the sake of winning? That is not reason enough.

My colleagues on the other side, if you have doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's credibility, about his ability to tell the truth, about his ability to be impartial and nonpartisan--no matter what you think of his jurisprudence or what he may or may not have done in high school and college--you should not vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court.

So my friends, Democratic and Republican, for all the controversy, all the heavyhandedness of the process, all the hyperbole and vilification of both sides, there is always hope that the Senate can save itself. We can salvage some decency here at the end.

If Judge Kavanaugh is rejected, President Trump will select another nominee--likely right-of-center, probably not to my liking but without the cloud that hangs over this nominee--and we can proceed to consider that nominee in a much less bitter, much better, less partisan way. A bipartisan majority of Senators, considering fully the weight of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, record, credibility, trustworthiness, and temperament, considering fully the heartbreaking testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, can vote to reject Judge Kavanaugh's nomination and ask the President to send the Senate another name.

For the sake of the Senate, of the Supreme Court, and of America, I hope, I pray, my colleagues will do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to the 200th anniversary of the New York City-based institution, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. The firm, which was founded in 1818, is still in operation in the United States and has had a major presence in New York.

The firm evolved from a 19th-century family-operated linen import business among Brown relatives in Northern Ireland, Liverpool, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York City and is one of the world's storied financial houses. The first office in New York was located at 191 Pearl Street near the wharfs of South Street. By 1835, the firm had moved to Wall Street as the city experienced the growth in trade from the recently completed Erie Canal and innovations in overseas shipping.

Philanthropy has been a passion of the partners who were early benefactors of the Union Theological Seminary, as well as founders of the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. Brown Brothers partners also served on a council whose work led to the enactment of New York State's first tenement house law in 1867.

On October 5, family and partners of the firm will gather to celebrate 200 years of their banking history. I wish them congratulations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is another morning in the Senate and another partisan diatribe coming from my good friend--and he is my good friend--the majority leader. Instead of looking at what happened--that a young woman came forward because she felt compelled to, knowing she would risk so much to herself, which, unfortunately, has happened--he seeks to blame somebody else; in this case, the Democrats.

Let's remember that Dr. Ford came forward before Judge Kavanaugh was even nominated. Dr. Ford came forward and called up two people before anyone even knew of her allegations, including, one, a hotline from the Washington Post, according to her testimony. Our colleague--my colleague here--has engaged in a giant Kabuki game. He knows how believable Dr. Ford is. He knows the majority of the American people believe Dr. Ford was telling the truth rather than Judge Kavanaugh. He knows any focus on Dr. Ford would bring more feelings that Judge Kavanaugh is the wrong person for the Supreme Court, but he can't attack Dr. Ford because of her credibility--greater than Judge Kavanaugh's--so he attacks ``Democrats,'' increasing the partisan rancor and basically the fundamental lack of getting to the truth in this Chamber.

I would like to ask the majority leader a few questions based on what he said a few minutes ago. He said this debate has been filled with partisan histrionics. Mr. Leader, are you accusing Dr. Ford of engaging in partisan histrionics when she came forward?

He said the politics of personal destruction is rampant. Again, Mr. Leader, are you accusing Dr. Ford of engaging in the politics of personal destruction?

He talked about people being intimidated. Again, Mr. Leader, are you accusing Dr. Ford of intimidating the Senate because she had the courage to come forward?

He talks over and over about the outrageous smear. Mr. Leader, it is about time you came forward and came clean. When you say ``outrageous smear,'' you are really referring to what Dr. Ford said, but you can't say so because everyone knows that kind of rhetoric would be outrageous.

It is her testimony that got this whole thing going; her testimony, required by one courageous Republican who said he wouldn't just rush things through, as Leader McConnell attempted to do, and that is why there was a hearing, not any Democrats--none.

I said yesterday, the leader is telling one of the greatest mistruths I have heard on the floor; that Democrats have delayed. Again, Mr. Leader, what power do we have to delay? Isn't it true that you set the time and place of hearings--or your committee chairs do--and you set the time and place of when we vote, with no effect from the Democrats, no influence by Democrats. If you have delayed, Mr. Leader, it is because you have delayed. If there has been delay, Mr. Leader, it is because you have delayed.

Ultimately, Dr. Ford came forward and won America's heart, and our Republican colleagues were upset because that might derail their headlong rush to put Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Led by Judge Kavanaugh at his return testimony and by President Trump and by Leader McConnell, they have tried to misdirect the whole issue away from Dr. Ford, who is the cause--the reason--we are debating all of this, and toward other boogeymen, many of whom happen to be Democrats, coincidentally. It is wrong.

What our Republican friends are doing--what my dear friend, the leader, is doing--is demeaning to Dr. Ford, and demeaning is the last thing Dr. Ford and others who have gone through what she went through needs now or deserves now.

So I would say to the leader, if you are talking about partisan histrionics, if you are talking about politics of personal destruction, if you are talking about being intimidated, if you are talking about outrageous smears, you are really accusing Dr. Ford of all of those things, not anyone else, because she is the reason we are all here in this type of discussion, and no Democrat importuned her to come--no Democrat.

Senator Feinstein tried to respect her wishes and not make it public. That was not a political instinct, that was a human instinct. As I understand it, Senator Feinstein's staff called each week and said: Do you want to go public now? And Dr. Ford said no, and Dianne Feinstein respected that. Now, because she did that, our Republican friends are accusing her of manipulating. Manipulating what? Dr. Ford's desire to keep this private?

We heard what Dr. Ford said. She wrestled with deciding whether to go public. She knew the damage it would create for her family, for her life--her very life. She decided she had an obligation to come forward. She decided she had to come forward. I believe her. A large number of Americans believe her, but even if you don't believe her and you choose to believe Judge Kavanaugh, don't demean Dr. Ford, which is exactly what you are doing.

It is a shame. It is a low point in a headlong rush to get somebody whose views are out of touch with the American people, who would, in all likelihood, greatly limit women's healthcare and women's right to choose, who would gravely constrain healthcare, who would allow this overreaching President to overreach with no constraint.

Dr. Ford seems to be a casualty along the way in terms of the name- calling, the nastiness, and the viciousness. Now, they don't say it is Dr. Ford, but make no mistake about it, it is her they are talking about because it was only she who brought all of these things up--not Democrats. Democrats didn't put words in her mouth. Her words came from the heart.

Now, I will make three final points about the documents that were released late last night. First, we Democrats had many fears this would be an all-too-limited process that would constrain the FBI from getting the facts. Having received a thorough briefing a few minutes ago, our fears have been realized. Our fears have been realized.

This is not a thorough investigation. According to Dr. Ford's lawyers and Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, there were many, many witnesses they wished to have interviewed, and they said they were not interviewed. They should be. Why not? What limits were placed on the FBI so that they couldn't do a full and thorough investigation? The word is, it was the White House, importuned by some of the Republican Senate staffers here.

Well, the White House has two choices: They can admit it or, if they

deny it, they should at very minimum make the directive they sent to the FBI public. If the White House didn't limit what the FBI normally does when they do one of these background checks, it sure seems they did, given the limited number of witnesses or the so many witnesses who weren't called who should have been. Make it public. Let the American people see whether it was truly limited or not.

What else should be made public are these documents that we are allowed to look at. First, again, the idea that this should be full and thorough and open and available is once again belied by the pettiness on the Republican side and the White House. There is only one document for 100 Members to see in the course of a day. That is very hard to do, and there were a lot of documents. There is only one copy of these documents. Why weren't there 10 copies in that room? What the heck is going on here? It is just a pattern--a pattern of limiting access to facts, limiting access to truth, and limiting access to what the American people ought to know.

So I reiterate my call--particularly after receiving the briefing about what the documents contain--that they be made public. Obviously, there have to be appropriate redactions, and there should be, to protect the privacy of those who were interviewed. But there is no reason on God's green Earth that those documents can't be made public. Let the American people decide.

Leader McConnell said from the very beginning to the effect that he was going to rush this through. Starting with not releasing documents, followed by constraints from our Senate Republican colleagues on what should be limitations on the FBI's ability to do the new background check, all the way to this morning with one document in that room, the White House and the Republican side here in the Senate have attempted to rush this through regardless of the facts. It is wrong. It jaundices relationships between the sides in this body--which we all want to be better--hurts the agencies involved, the reputation of the FBI, and, above all, this hurts the Supreme Court and the American people.

Make no mistake about it. Once again, had this process been open and fair, maybe the outcome would be different; maybe it wouldn't. Who could tell? But at least there would be some respect for the process. That hasn't happened, and that is very bad for this body, for the Supreme Court, and for these United States of America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I am glad that the majority leader and I get along. I am glad we are able to do certain things together, like the opioid bill and the appropriations bill, but that cannot hold me back from responding to the blatant falsehoods he tells day after day after day on this floor.

First, from the man who singlehandedly delayed the filling of Justice Scalia's seat for 10 months to complain about a 1-week delay to get the truth--give me a break. It is classic, diversionary, blame-the-other- person tactics, when he himself is the master of delay. It is galling and appalling day after day to hear the majority leader get on his high horse about delay, when he almost invented the word when it comes to judicial nominations.

Second, he blames Democrats for the delay, which is about the most blatant falsehood I have heard uttered on the floor in a long time. The majority leader knows darn well that he has the sole power to determine when to put the Kavanaugh nomination on the floor. He could have done it 2 weeks ago. He could have done it last week. He is now insisting he will do it this week.

Democrats have no say. He talked about an agreement that caused a week's delay. Who was the agreement with? Three Republican Senators.

The majority leader knows--knows--that it was Republicans who caused him to delay, both for the FBI investigation and for Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford to testify. He didn't have to do that. He had the power. He is to blame for the delay, but he couldn't do anything otherwise because his own Republicans insisted on it.

Again, it is a blatant falsehood. I am so tempted to use the L word, but he is my friend. To say that Democrats caused the delay--Mr. Leader, assert your power to determine what is put on the floor, and be a man. Man up and say it is your decision, not ours. We have nothing to do with it.

Third, he says he is one of the most qualified nominees we have ever seen. We know what is going on here. Everyone--everyone--including the majority leader himself, knows that Kavanaugh is a deeply flawed candidate for a whole lot of reasons. Knowing that, the majority leader and the Republican majority have to divert attention from Kavanaugh. So they are focusing on people who did nothing wrong, like Senator Feinstein, like the Judiciary Democratic minority, and like the Democratic Party.

It is outrageous, but they know that Kavanaugh is not very good, and they know his testimony hurt him across America. I was talking to a CEO, a Republican of a major company. He said his board was watching the debate, and every one of them changed their mind after seeing Kavanaugh testify. They said: This guy doesn't belong on the bench. We can do better. That is the overwhelming reaction of Americans.

Judge Kavanaugh hurt himself dramatically and permanently by his screed--his nasty, partisan screed. That is something of a new, unschooled, two-bit politician, not someone who wants to be on the Supreme Court of the United States.

He hurt himself. Leader McConnell knows that. The Republican leadership knows it. Donald Trump knows it, but they have to get the focus off of Kavanaugh. So they come up with these straw men and women. They come up with these false innuendos, distortions, and dishonesty. It is not going to work. It is not going to work.

Now, let me turn to the President, and in the strongest possible terms, let me condemn the comments by President Trump last night about Dr. Ford. President Trump's outright mockery of a sexual assault survivor, riddled as it was with falsehoods, was reprehensible, beneath the office of the Presidency, and beneath common decency from one person to another. President Trump owes Dr. Ford an immediate apology.

For too long--far too long--survivors of sexual assaults have been afraid to come forward because they thought that powerful men would shout them down and destroy their character. The President of the United States, the most powerful man there is, confirmed those fears for millions of women in the most despicable way possible.

President Trump should send a message to the women of America right now that he is sorry for saying what he said about Dr. Blasey Ford and that survivors of sexual assault should not only be heard but treated with dignity and respect and compassion.

You don't have to believe everything Dr. Ford said--and I do--to refrain from the nasty and vicious attacks, riddled with lies, in sort of a mobocracy-type way, and yet Donald Trump shows no restraint and no regulator. He is the prime example of why the norms in America, regardless of politics and regardless of party, are declining, and we don't hear a peep out of my colleagues on the other side, with a few notable and noble exceptions.

He is ruining the norms of America. He is so degrading the way people treat each other. It is pathetic, and it does permanent damage to this Republic, unless his own party members or others close to him speak up.

Anyone who watched Dr. Blasey Ford saw a credible and courageous woman, who elected to relive the worst night of her life because she felt a civic duty to come forward. That action took immense courage.

She is not the first. It is not unusual anymore. We know thousands of women who were hurt and then afraid to come forward mainly because they thought they would be ridiculed and disbelieved, just as President Trump appallingly, despicably, and lowly did last night.

Dr. Ford's actions took courage. She is a woman who is far more honest than Donald Trump. She admitted that she was ``terrified'' to speak in public about her very private pain and trauma.

I have been disappointed by President Trump's comments before, but this is a new low. I repeat, President Trump should apologize immediately.

Now, what will my colleagues on the other side do? They will ignore President Trump's comments, sidestep President Trump's comments, and spend their time blaming Democrats, even though we had no say in the delay. The delay was through Republicans. We know what they will do. It is shameful.

The President is day by day tearing down the norms that have built this country up. We have had the greatest norms, the greatest character, and the greatest behavior of any Nation ever, but it is declining now because people of goodwill allow Trump to do it without criticizing him. It is about time they did. It is about time they did.

Now, shifting focus back to events here in Congress. We have to get back to reality and truth and focus on treating the Supreme Court nomination debate the right way. When all is said and done, this is about the nominee's credibility and temperament.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: There are many who say what happened when someone was 15 and 18 doesn't indicate their personality and what kind of person they are when they are 53.

Well, I believe Dr. Ford, and I believe what she said is very relevant. There are many who don't want to consider that, but there is an issue that should matter even to them, and that is the credibility and temperament of Judge Kavanaugh.

This is what he is at 53. If he can't tell the truth about previous encounters, engagements, behavior, and activity, which we have found over and over

with Judge Kavanaugh, he doesn't deserve to be on the bench. He doesn't deserve to be on the bench.

That is why we need an FBI investigation. That is why Republicans stymied Leader McConnell in his head-long rush to have a vote and demanded an FBI investigation--it wasn't Democrats, we know that-- because they wanted to get to the truth, because credibility of a Justice on the Supreme Court is a very, very important characteristic, right below it is temperament, and then lack of partisanship. Unfortunately, at least from initial indications, Judge Kavanaugh is not high on any of those three lists. That is why we need the investigation, and that is why we need it to be thorough, but we still don't know how thorough of an investigation the FBI is conducting.

As of last night, Dr. Blasey Ford and her list of corroborating witnesses have not been interviewed. While Deborah Ramirez has reportedly been interviewed, her attorney says her list of corroborating witnesses have not. NBC News is reporting that more than 40 people with potential information for the investigation have not been contacted for interviews by the FBI. I heard this story over and over. People call the tips line--that is what they are supposed to do-- and they don't get a call back. This may be vital information. We want to know the truth. It can all be done in a week, the week Senator Flake and Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski asked for, not the Democrats asked for--although we certainly agree with them--but that is not what caused Leader McConnell to delay, and every Republican Senator knows it. So that is why we need this to be a thorough investigation.

Without a clear sense of what the White House has told the FBI to look at in this investigation, we have no idea if the FBI is doing a real investigation or simply preparing a figleaf--at the direction of the White House--for Republicans to vote yes.

I understand the difficulty for the FBI. I have a great deal of respect for Director Wray. He has been pushed around. They have been ridiculed by the President--the brave men and women who risk their lives for us as part of law enforcement, but the FBI has a duty to do, and Director Wray has a duty to their reputation. If he is being constrained by the White House, he has an obligation to let us know, and certainly Counsel McGhan has an obligation to let us know what constraints he has placed upon the FBI.

So here is what needs to happen: First, the White House must publicly release in writing what the White House Counsel has instructed the FBI to pursue. If the FBI is not interviewing these witnesses that Ms. Ramirez's attorney presented to them because Counsel McGhan or Donald Trump has said don't do it, we ought to know that, and certainly not just we ought to know that, the Senators who requested the FBI investigation ought to know that.

Second, Leader McConnell should arrange an all-Senators briefing from the agent in charge of the investigation before the vote. We should know what he did and what he didn't do and why.

Third, the findings of the FBI investigation, upon completion, should be released publicly, with any personal information redacted. This is not the usual practice, but it has been done in the past when it is needed, and it is sure needed now. The FBI should do it.

These three steps would go a long way to ensure the public's faith that the investigation has been conducted fairly, fully, and properly.

This debate, this nomination, is about whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the character, the credibility, and the impartiality to serve on the Nation's highest Court. In order to be an effective judge at any level, you need to be impartial. You need to be dispassionate. We don't ask our judges to be perfectly neutral, but we can't tolerate judges who are nakedly partisan either. Judge Kavanaugh himself has said that ``most obviously, a judge cannot be a political partisan.'' Those are his words, but that is just what he has shown us he is, through his long history and now with his recent rant.

The testimony Judge Kavanaugh prepared for the Judiciary Committee last Thursday--prepared testimony, this was not just on the spur-- showed who he was, and it was steeped in partisan resentment and acrimony. He tried to implicate sitting Senators in a ``calculated and orchestrated political hit job.'' That is what he said to the Senators he was being interviewed by. He denounced ``left-wing opposition groups'' who don't have close to the power the hard right has had in pushing our Republican colleagues around to rush this nomination through, but we don't hear about them. Then, topping it off, he portrayed the recent allegations against him as ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.''

I dare say, Dr. Ford didn't have the Clintons on her mind once when she wrestled and struggled with whether to come forward. It is an absurd charge--absurd.

He even told Democratic Senators: ``What goes around comes around,'' which, to many here, sounds just like a threat. A judge telling people ``what goes around comes around''? A judge, a Supreme Court Justice says that when he is nominated? We can certainly do better. Even if someone who has the same ideology as Kavanaugh is chosen, someone who doesn't do things like that should be before us. I hope that person will not be chosen, of course, if he has Judge Kavanaugh's ideology, which is one of the main reasons I was against him to begin with.

We should never forget it is likely Judge Kavanaugh will greatly impede or eliminate a woman's right to choose. It is likely--it is very likely--he will get rid of healthcare, including preexisting conditions. It is likely he will allow Presidential overreach. Those three substantive bases motivated most of us to come out against Kavanaugh, even before his awful testimony.

I understand Judge Kavanaugh felt his character was under assault. I understand how he is feeling angry and upset. I understand responding to questions in the heat of the moment with words you might later regret, but these were prepared remarks. It takes a partisan to see a partisan conspiracy against him.

As conservative fellow at the Brookings Institute and former Kavanaugh defender Benjamin Wittes wrote in a column entitled ``I know Brett Kavanaugh, but I wouldn't confirm him'':

Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement was an unprecedentedly

partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be judge. I do not

begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. . . . But I cannot

condone the partisanship--which was raw, undisguised, naked,

and conspiratorial--from someone who asks for public faith as

a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance

was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect

from a member of the judiciary.

That is from somebody who is a conservative and a Kavanaugh supporter. The courage that a good number of both Kavanaugh's friends and observers like Wittes are showing and realizing that this guy is too much, I wish we saw a little more of that from the Republican side because they know, deep in their hearts, this guy shouldn't be on the bench. We know they know.

Now, the judge's partisanship at a hearing raises questions, as I have mentioned, but the biggest issue against Judge Kavanaugh, in my judgment, is credibility. It is the No. 1 issue. Does Kavanaugh always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Whatever you think of what he did as a 17- or 18-year-old, what Judge Kavanaugh has said as a 53-year-old matters, whether you think the 17- or 18- year-old behavior should be part of the decision, which I do, or whether you don't.

The harsh fact is, Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly--repeatedly--danced around the truth on issues large and small in 2004, his first confirmation hearings; in 2006, his second; and now again in 2018. On things such as what happened when he was in high school and college and law school, to things such as grand jury proceedings and White House controversies, again, he has danced around the truth, never been direct, and often tried to mislead. We cannot have a Supreme Court Justice whose credibility is in doubt. That will hurt the Nation for a generation.

So I ask my colleagues, whatever you think about what Judge Kavanaugh did at 17 or 18, think about what he said at age 53. Think about the credibility of the man now as a grown adult and a judge. Think about whether you want to put someone who has been so partisan, with questionable credibility, on the Court or whether there is someone better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I like the majority leader. We get along quite well. He even laughs at my jokes, which sometimes aren't very good. We are very proud we are working on the appropriations bills together in a bipartisan way, as this place ought to work. But sometimes his comments are so absurd and so filled with double standard, innuendo, and hypocrisy that you don't know whether to laugh or cry.

He has been on the floor every day saying that Democrats are causing delay. Democrats are causing delay? First, to say that Democrats are causing delay, coming from the same man who delayed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice nominee Merrick Garland for over 300 days without a shrug of his shoulders--give me a break. The leader delayed for 10 months when he thought it was right to do, and he can't wait for a week to get an honest report out of the FBI? What a double standard. How galling. Accusing Democrats of needlessly delaying a Supreme Court nomination is galling and hypocritical coming from a leader who delayed the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice for over 300 days, until his party had a chance to win the White House. So no one--no American-- should accept his admonishments about delay. He is the master of delay.

Second, he blames Democrats for these delays. As the leader well knows, Democrats are not in charge. We can't set the calendar. These things have been delayed because people on his side of the aisle who had sincere concerns about having a fair process said they will not go forward unless the process is made fairer.

Even the initial hearing where Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified was because a member of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side said he didn't want to go forward until he heard from them. It had nothing to do with Democrats. Did we agree that should happen? Of course. And so did most people who are fairminded. But it wasn't caused by us.

On the reopening of the FBI investigation into these new allegations, the background check investigation, I would ask Leader McConnell, who caused that? Who caused this delay? It is not the Democrats. We don't have the ability to do it. It was three Members on his side who sincerely were

seeking better truth because they heard two arguments, they weren't sure which was right, and they saw that without some kind of independent investigation, it would tear the American people apart in ways for which we will pay a price years down the road no matter what the outcome of the vote on Judge Kavanaugh.

Democrats didn't cause the delay, and he knows it. It was the inability of all of the Republicans to be unified--with justification, because the truth should be sought after in a more sincere way for a nomination to the highest Court of the land.

Leader McConnell has said: We are going to ``plow right through'' the recent allegations. Fortunately, some Members on his side of the aisle didn't want to plow right through. They didn't want to delay unnecessarily. One week--give me a break--compared to 10 months, leaving the Scalia seat open? Who are we kidding? Who are we kidding? Who is making this a political argument? Let's ask.

One final point. The leader kept accusing the people who came forward of engaging in political smear campaigns, of being in the mud. I want to ask the leader to answer a direct question: Does he believe or not believe Dr. Ford? Yes or no. I happen to believe her. He refuses to answer that one way or the other because he knows that Dr. Ford had tremendous credibility. Instead, he calls her names. He uses it as Democrats--but she came forward on her own.

By the way, one of the first things she did was she called the Washington Post and spoke to the reporter who later wrote the story. That was long before any Democrat knew what was going on. She felt a sincere need to come forward.

To call her political--which is what, by ricochet, the leader is doing--is so unfair and is so wrong. To call all three of these women who came forward, whether or not you believe them, political actors is treating women in the same way that unfortunately too many women, as we have learned over the last few years, have been treated in the past. That doesn't mean allegations shouldn't be proven. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a discreet, fair process to try to get to the bottom of it, which is what the FBI investigation is. That doesn't mean all men are guilty before proven guilty. It means there deserves to be a fair hearing even if it takes 1 week--1 week compared to 10 months of delay.

Finally, the investigation itself should only take a week. That is for sure. No Democrat has called for it taking more than a week. We are not moving the goalpost. But it should be thorough. It should not be limited by the Senate Judiciary staff, who was initially calling the shots, and they have been biased to begin with. When the Democratic staff asked to be on the phone with the counsel to the President, Mr. McGahn, the Republican staff refused. That is not bipartisan. That is not fair. That is not evenhanded.

Fortunately, yesterday the President said the FBI should go forward. They can interview many people in a week. When there has been a crime situation that called for it or a terrorism situation that called for it, from what I understand, they have interviewed hundreds in a week. So a list of 20 people to be interviewed in a week, when the FBI has thousands of agents, many of them well trained in the art of figuring out how to interview somebody, is not unreasonable. It is only fair.

We hope there are still no limitations on the FBI investigation. We hope there are no limitations because that would jaundice the whole process, and that is not what those who called for it on either side of the aisle had asked for. We had asked for it to be full and fair and open, and then everyone would make his or her judgment. That is all people are asking for.

On that issue, I once again call on President Trump and the White House to release in writing what White House Counsel Don McGahn has instructed the FBI to pursue. Until then, we have to take President Trump's off-the-cuff comments with, perhaps, grains of salt. We have to be shown that what he said is actually being implemented.

Let me read a few quotes.

``The Supreme Court must never, never be viewed as a partisan institution.'' That is what Judge Kavanaugh said in his 2006 confirmation hearings.

Here is one more from a speech Judge Kavanaugh gave in 2015: ``First and most obviously . . . a judge cannot be a political partisan.'' I think most Americans would agree with that. I certainly do.

A lodestar in our consideration of judicial confirmations should be whether the nominee is independent and within the ideological mainstream. The Judge Kavanaugh we saw last Thursday did not meet the standard laid out in his past statements. His prepared statement to the committee--prepared; if you will, malice aforethought--accused sitting U.S. Senators of a phony smear campaign, lambasted ``left-wing opposition groups,'' and portrayed the recent allegations--the allegations of Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez, and the third person who came forward, Ms. Swetnick--as ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' Frankly, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for FOX News than a confirmation hearing for the august U.S. Supreme Court. But that is in character with Judge Kavanaugh's long history of working for the most partisan legal causes--Ken Starr, Bush v. Gore, all the myriad controversies of the Bush era.

It would be one thing if Judge Kavanaugh discarded his partisan feelings once he donned the black robes of a jurist. Unfortunately, he has been on the bench for many years, and in Thursday's hearing, he revealed that his bitter partisan resentments still lurk right below the surface.

It should give us all pause to consider what it means to elevate such a partisan world view to the Supreme Court, whether it be a Democratic or Republican partisan view, where rulings must be made on the legal merits, not--not--on the side of the aisle which most benefits.

The greatest issue against Judge Kavanaugh, the one that really brothers most people, is his credibility. Is he telling the truth? That issue supersedes all the others.

There may be some who say: Well, what happened in high school shouldn't count. It is many years later. People grow. People change.

I think what happened to Dr. Ford--she seems credible to me--is something you can't predict. It is not what men do. Some may say that, but we are looking at what Judge Kavanaugh said at age 53, not what he did at age 18. We are looking at his credibility now as a grown adult. If you believe Dr. Ford, then Judge Kavanaugh is not telling the truth.

If this were the only instance, it would be one thing. That is bad enough, but there are many more. Over and over again, it is hard to believe what Judge Kavanaugh swore under oath at the committee hearing.

Just yesterday, NBC News reported that either Judge Kavanaugh or people close to the judge were in communication with his Yale classmates to get them to rebut allegations by Deborah Ramirez, later published in the New Yorker.

Beyond the unseemliness of a Federal judge pressuring former classmates to support his nomination, it seems that Judge Kavanaugh was at least very misleading to the Judiciary Committee about Ms. Ramirez's story. When asked by Senator Hatch when he first heard of Ramirez's allegations, he answered ``in the New Yorker story.'' That is when he first heard. Based on the NBC reports, if they are correct, that was not truthful.

It would be one thing if that were one isolated incident, but, again, there are far too many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many mischaracterizations. He pled ignorance to many Bush-era controversies, only for emails to be released showing he was aware of them all and played a role in many. He offered explanations for high school yearbook quotes. And it is not the quotes themselves or what they indicated; it is that his explanations sort of defy belief. And, of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college classmates, he has grossly mischaracterized his relationship with alcohol.

The common thread is that Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly tiptoes around the truth. He doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to paint his nomination in a favorable light.

We want a Supreme Court nominee, whatever their politics and whatever their party origins, to be a shining example of someone who tells the truth

without doubt and without equivocation. If you say ``Well, maybe he is telling the truth, and maybe he is not,'' then he doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, and I think most Americans are saying that.

Again, even if you want to discount--as some people do--what happened when he was 15 in high school and 18 in college, you cannot discount what he is saying and professing at age 53 when it flies in the face of being truthful. That is the key question here.

There is demeanor. He sure didn't show the demeanor of a judge at the hearing. There is partisanship. He brought out the most raw form of partisanship, so unbecoming of someone on the appeals court, let alone the Supreme Court, and he did not show any semblance to always being 100 percent honest and truthful, which is what we need in a Supreme Court Justice.

So, again, even if you feel that what happened when he was 15 and 18 shouldn't matter, what happens when he is 53 does matter, and his credibility is in real doubt--doubt enough, I think, for most Americans to say that this man does not belong on the Supreme Court, and there ought to be somebody--many people--who would be a whole lot better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.