Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Friday, Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski, joined by Democratic Senators Coons, Klobuchar, and others, made the only fair move to demand that the FBI investigate the credible allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It was the right thing to do. It was fair to both Dr. Blasey Ford and to Judge Kavanaugh.

For too long Republicans have rushed this process forward and likely would have rushed to a final vote if not for the prudent and bipartisan effort of those Senators to demand a full FBI investigation.

What is important now is for the FBI investigation to be serious, impartial, and thorough, to ferret out the facts and do so quickly. That means interviewing all--all--of the relevant witnesses and accepting corroborating accounts when they come forward. It also means following up on any leads that emerge from the process of the investigation.

The FBI has ample resources to do this within the 1-week period requested by the members of the Judiciary Committee. No one is asking that it take longer than a week, but everyone is asking that it be done thoroughly and completely within that week.

There is concern that the White House has placed severe constraints on the investigation. Until today, the President tried to dodge that responsibility, with the White House even saying the Senate is somehow responsible for the scope of the investigation. Let me be clear. The Senate has no control over the scope of an FBI investigation of this sort--only the White House.

A few hours ago, I was glad to hear President Trump say he would like to see Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh interviewed by the FBI as part of this investigation and that the FBI should be able to interview anyone--anyone--appropriate. We have to now make sure that those comments reflect what the White House has officially told the FBI.

Democratic Senators, led by Ranking Member Feinstein, have asked the White House what parameters it is giving to the FBI, but we haven't yet received the reply, so we need an official document from the White House made public so the whole country knows what the scope is, and it should outline the scope of the investigation.

We told the President: If you are truly giving the FBI the ability to follow the facts wherever they lead, show us; show us what White House Counsel Don McGahn has instructed the FBI. Because prior to President Trump's off-the-cuff comments in the Rose Garden, there were rumors that the majority staff of the Judiciary Committee were drawing up limited interview lists for the FBI and otherwise circumscribing the investigation. Partisan staffers on the Judiciary Committee should not exercise any constraints over this investigation.

Democratic staffers asked the Republican majority staff to get on the phone with Counsel McGahn to discuss what should be the parameters, and they were told: Forget it. It is the same partisan staff who has blocked documents, who has operated in a purely partisan way, and who couldn't come up with an agreement when these things had always been done in a bipartisan way. To let the partisan Senate staff on the Republican side dictate the terms of this investigation would be wrong.

Ultimately, President Trump and Counsel McGahn know the buck stops with the White House. It is only they who can instruct the FBI. Now that the President has said he wants a full investigation, that he wants both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to be interviewed, we assume that will happen, but we want to make sure Mr. McGahn tells the FBI just that.

The Senate and the American people deserve to know what is the scope of the investigation because this investigation must be done in a manner that allows the public to have confidence in its findings. Whether you are for or against Judge Kavanaugh going to the Supreme Court, it will only benefit the country if the investigation is regarded as fair, clear, and not constrained, particularly by partisan means. For that reason, we hope the FBI will be available to brief the Senate on the results of the investigation before a final floor vote.

Democrats are not interested in delay for the sake of delay. This can all be completed quickly, but it must be done right.

We are a society based on the rule of law. It is therefore crucial that the American people have faith in the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court.

Our job as Senators is to decide if someone has the intelligence, the temperament, the independence, and the credibility to earn the title of Justice for a lifetime. Character matters. Character matters deeply.

Anyone who watched the Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday should have serious, if not disqualifying, doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and independence--qualities we should expect in any Supreme Court Justice.

First, let me address the nominee's independence. After Dr. Blasey Ford's courageous, polite, detailed, and credible testimony to the committee, Judge Kavanaugh embarked on a partisan screed, angrily implicating sitting U.S. Senators in a conspiratorial plot to destroy his nomination. He even had the temerity to label the recent allegations a part of some ``revenge of the Clintons,'' an absurd and shopworn boogeyman of partisan Republicans from the Gingrich era on forward. That was from Judge Kavanaugh's prepared opening statements.

When questioned, Judge Kavanaugh impugned the motives of sitting Senators, rudely interrupting and dismissing questions in a way I have never seen tolerated from a witness. Judge Kavanaugh asked a Democratic Member of this Chamber whether she had ever blacked out from drinking-- an offensive question asked by a nominee who was there to provide answers, not evade answers by asking very nasty questions.

It was quite clear from Thursday's testimony that Judge Kavanaugh harbors deep, deep partisan resentments. That is not the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court.

I must say, this isn't the first time I thought that Judge Kavanaugh was too partisan. When he came before the Judiciary Committee in 2004 and 2006, I noted that he was involved in every major legal partisan fight of the Clinton and Bush eras, from Ken Starr to Bush v. Gore, from torture to signing statements to Manny Miranda's theft of Democratic emails. I wondered then, as I do today, whether we should promote a loyal partisan warrior to a position that calls for independence and judiciousness.

Frankly, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was a stunning display of partisanship and recrimination that solidified my skepticism about his objectivity and independence. I understand these issues are emotional. I understand that his character was being questioned. But rather than providing sincere and measured testimony in his defense, which would have been far more effective, Judge Kavanaugh revealed that his world view is skewed by a very partisan lens.

Let me address probably the most important question about Judge Kavanaugh: his credibility. President Trump has suggested that it doesn't matter what someone did 36 years ago in high school. Whatever view you take of that notion--I believe, given the seriousness of what Dr. Ford said, it should matter--the question about Judge Kavanaugh's credibility is one that weighs on us today, on his behavior right now. It is a question not about what Judge Kavanaugh did as a 16- or 17- year-old but what he has said as a 53-year-old nominee to the Supreme Court.

The harsh fact is that we have mounting evidence that Judge Kavanaugh is just not credible. He has dissembled about the Bush administration's policies on torture, the nomination of controversial judges, grand jury proceedings, and the theft of Democratic emails. Thursday's hearing provided fresh examples of Judge Kavanaugh's difficult relationship with the truth. Judge Kavanaugh gave answers about his yearbook page, supposed drinking games, and high school behavior that simply defy credulity. Judge Kavanaugh said he ``never'' drank so much that he forgot events--a characterization that does not track with multiple descriptions made by many high school and college classmates.

So the 64,000 dollar question is this: Is Judge Kavanaugh credible? Will Judge Kavanaugh say anything, deny anything, mislead about anything to secure confirmation to the Supreme Court? Does he have the integrity, the independence, the credibility to do the job? Does Judge Kavanaugh deserve the promotion of a lifetime, for a lifetime? These very serious questions about Judge Kavanaugh's state of mind and who he is today, not who he was in 1982, should weigh on the conscience of every Senator.

In my experience with Judge Kavanaugh, in 2004, in 2006, and again throughout this process, I am left with the impression that Judge Kavanaugh would dissemble, mislead, even prevaricate--even prevaricate--about everything from the momentous to the mundane-- whatever it takes to cast his nomination in the most favorable light. Faced now with the gravest of allegations and the sincere testimony by a very courageous woman, I believe the Senate should consider the issue of credibility to be front and center in deciding whether Judge Kavanaugh deserves a seat on the bench--a lifetime appointment to the most important court in the land.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we approach tomorrow's hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, I want to be very clear about how the Republican leadership has handled these incredibly serious and credible allegations of sexual assault. The Republican leadership has handled them poorly, unfairly, and disrespectfully.

Leader McConnell has called this entire issue a ``smear campaign'' cooked up by Democrats. That is a blatant falsehood that demeans the women who have courageously come forward. They came forward, not Democrats. They did it on their own, not Democrats. And when Leader McConnell says that it is a smear campaign, he is demeaning these women. As I have said before--but we have yet to hear--Leader McConnell owes Dr. Ford an apology for what he has said.

After Republicans on the Judiciary Committee learned of a second potential allegation against Judge

Kavanaugh, they renewed their request, of course, to accelerate--to speed up--the confirmation process.

Chairman Grassley has prohibited witnesses in tomorrow's hearing, other than Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, including the one and only alleged eyewitness to the events in question. Chairman Grassley and several of his colleagues on the other side have already proposed a final committee vote on Friday. They proposed the vote before the hearing occurs. Isn't that prejudgment? And they are acting, when they propose the vote before the hearing, as if the conclusion was foreordained and the hearing is just a nuisance to ``plow through.''

Most galling of all: Republican leadership and the White House have blocked the FBI from reopening an independent background check investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, a standard procedure for Federal nominees when new allegations arise. This isn't a new thing that Democrats are pulling out of a hat. This is something we do all the time--except in this case, no.

So this isn't a Democratic smear job, as the Leader so callously and disrespectfully suggested; this is a Republican rush job and, I might add, a rush job to avoid getting to the truth.

Here is the contradiction in Leader McConnell's logic: Leader McConnell keeps saying that the allegations by Dr. Ford and other women are ``uncorroborated''--his word--while, at the same time, he is blockading the obvious avenues to corroborate them, and that would be an impartial FBI investigation calling on witnesses to testify. Senator McConnell's assertion is wrong on its face because sworn statements corroborating Dr. Ford's account were submitted to the Judiciary Committee yesterday. If he doesn't believe those statements, it is simple: Have the FBI go interview those who submitted the statements, and then they would have to tell the truth under the penalty of perjury.

So right here and now, I challenge any Member of the Republican Senate to come to the floor and give one good reason why we shouldn't allow the FBI to follow up on its background investigation--one good reason. I haven't heard one. With all the rhetoric, all the screaming, all the name-calling, all the disrespecting of women who have come forward--something this Nation knows all too well these days--we haven't heard one actual reason why there shouldn't be an FBI investigation.

Will it slow it down? It will take only a few days.

I would remind Leader McConnell that he slowed down a nomination to the Supreme Court for a year, and now a few days is too much? Give me a break.

Dr. Ford has asked for an FBI investigation. That shows the faith she has in her account. Editorial boards across the country have echoed her call for an FBI investigation. Anita Hill, treated so unfairly in her day, said that an FBI investigation is essential. And I have to give some credit: A handful of fair-minded Republican Senators have said that an FBI investigation is warranted because they know it would get to the facts. They know it would keep politics out of it. They know it wouldn't cause much of a delay.

During Justice Thomas's confirmation process, an update to the FBI background check took 3 days--3 days. Leader McConnell held a Supreme Court seat open for over 400 days. So why was that OK, and this is not

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

Madam President, moments ago, another serious allegation of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh was made public in a sworn affidavit. There are now multiple, credible, serious, and corroborated allegations against Judge Kavanaugh made under the penalty of perjury.

The new affidavit by Mrs. Swetnick calls out for a thorough, impartial, detailed investigation done by our FBI professionals, as do the allegations made by other women. Yet, currently, there is only a single hearing--tomorrow, with no witnesses other than Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh--before a scheduled committee vote and a potential final Senate floor vote soon thereafter. That is not right. There is no need for such a rush. These women deserve to be heard in a fair way, and their claims must be properly investigated. Republicans need to immediately suspend the proceedings related to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, and the President must order the FBI to reopen the background check investigation.

I strongly believe Judge Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration, and the President should withdraw his nomination if Kavanaugh will not do it voluntarily. If he will not, at the very least, the hearing and vote should be postponed while the FBI investigates all of these serious and very troubling allegations.

If our Republican colleagues rush to proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the Supreme Court and the honor of our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, yesterday the Republican leader began his speech with a quote of mine. Let me begin mine with a quote of his. ``We're going to plow right through it.'' That is Leader McConnell: We are going to plow right through it. He was speaking to the Values Voter Summit about serious allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh. ``We're going to plow right through it.'' Does that sound like someone who is treating these allegations with respect and fairness and evenhandedness? Does it sound like someone who wants to get at the real facts no matter where they fall? Certainly not to me and not to the American people.

Then, yesterday, Leader McConnell brought the debate to a new low by calling the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh a ``Democratic smear job.'' Never mind that Leader McConnell has no evidence--no evidence whatsoever--that the recent allegations were contrived by Democrats. They were not. Never mind that Leader McConnell has no evidence--no evidence whatsoever--that the events in question took place or didn't take place. It seems likely they did, but he has no evidence one way or the other because he will not even ask for an investigation of it.

He then unilaterally declared the accounts of multiple women to be ``manufactured mud,'' part of a partisan smear campaign. Let me address these comments directly that these allegations are part of a ``Democratic smear job.''

First, these allegations did not originate with Democrats. These women came forward with principle and courage, knowing they would face abuse and lasting personal pain for doing so, but realizing they had an obligation to the country, they did so anyway.

Dr. Ford came forward and shared her story voluntarily and on her own initiative. She wasn't put up by a Democrat or Republican or anybody else. It came from her heart. The idea that these allegations were cooked up or instigated or encouraged by Democrats in Congress is patently absurd and a real insult to the members of the Judiciary Committee and the Members of this Chamber. It is against the spirit, if not the letter, of our Senate rules.

Addressing the second part of McConnell's claim, that is even worse. Democrats and Republican are always throwing charges at each other, but the idea that this is a smear job--whatever you think of the veracity of the allegations, it is shameful--shameful--to doubt the women's sincerity. To say they are making it up and to discredit their sincere testimony is nothing more than a partisan hit job.

For too long, people in positions of power have dismissed accounts made by women before any evidence could be brought forward as politically motivated or character assassination. We have come a long way in this country, and we have to be better than that--better than the low standard Senator McConnell has set.

At a minimum, we must respect these women and Judge Kavanaugh by handling these allegations with the seriousness they deserve. Leader McConnell owes an apology to Dr. Ford for labeling her allegations a ``smear job.'' Let me repeat that. Leader McConnell owes an apology to Dr. Ford for labeling her allegations a ``smear job,'' and he should apologize to her immediately.

It is galling--galling--for the Republican leader, who has done more than maybe anyone else to politicize the Supreme Court nomination process, to make these trumped-up, hyperbolic charges of partisanship by Democrats.

It is a sad habit of Republicans to accuse the other side of doing what they, in fact, are doing. It happens over and over. That seems to be the case here, as Democrats have over and over urged the FBI to help investigate these allegations, to get to the bottom of it, to get to the truth, while Republicans block any investigation and plow right through with their nominee.

It is simple. If Leader McConnell were truly concerned about these allegations being swept up in partisanship, he would join us in calling for an FBI background investigation, which can be performed quietly, soberly, quickly, and effectively, without fuss, without muss, and without any circus atmosphere. That is the way to get this done. The only reason it hasn't happened is that both the President and Leader McConnell have blocked it, as well as Senator Grassley. Don't they want the truth? They say they do, but their actions belie that because they will not even entertain a background check, which the FBI does over and over, to find out the facts. I think they are afraid of the facts.

Why doesn't Judge Kavanaugh call for an FBI investigation? He went on TV last night and said they are not true. If they are not true, he has nothing to fear from an FBI background investigation, and he should want it, no

matter what Leader McConnell and President Trump say. Why doesn't he call for it? Is he afraid of the facts?

So I challenge you, Leader McConnell. If you are so convinced this is a smear campaign, you will have no problem with an FBI investigation to prove your case. Come to the floor. Come now. Join me in asking the White House to reopen the background check. Let's get the politics out of it. Let's root out the facts. Let's get to the truth--no histrionics, no smearing, no name-calling--as they said in Dragnet, just the facts.

Labeling this a partisan smear job demeans not only the Senators in my caucus, who I know are doing everything they can to treat these allegations with caution and respect for both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, but it demeans many, many women who have come forward of their own volition, knowingly inviting abuse, to share their stories. They share them not because they simply want their stories to be told. They want to prevent it from happening again and again and again in the future. They want to protect their daughters and their granddaughters from this kind of stuff, which, as we have seen in the last year or two, has been all too real, all too frequent. They are doing a noble thing. Then, to slander them by calling what Dr. Ford said a smear job is outrageous, demeaning, wrong. Again, Leader McConnell should rethink what he said in the heat of the moment and apologize to Dr. Ford.

So what is really going on here? Why are Republicans falsely claiming that credible allegations are being made for political reasons? Because their nominee to the Supreme Court, frankly, has a gigantic credibility problem.

In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh misled the committee on numerous occasions regarding his involvement in some of the ugliest controversies of the Bush administration, including the Bush administration's policies on torture, the confirmation of some deeply flawed judges, like William Pryor and Charles Pickering, and his knowledge of the odious theft of Democratic email records by a Republican staff member named Manny Miranda. In all of those, Judge Kavanaugh did not come clean. He did not tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but far, far from it.

Judge Kavanaugh was in the thick of all of those things as a top political operative in the Bush White House and yet denied any involvement. Here again, with these new allegations brought forward by Dr. Ford and others, Judge Kavanaugh is again issuing blanket denials, but the question looms: Is he credible? Is he credible?

He is opposed to having the FBI investigate, as is the majority leader and as is President Trump. None of them want the facts to come out. They just want to ``plow right through it.'' If not for the courage of a handful of Republican Senators, we wouldn't have even had the hearing. Leader McConnell and Senator Grassley did not want hearings--even hearings, which they are now saying are fair and right. But a few Republican Senators, to their credit, said: We have to have hearings. At least let's hear this woman out.

I didn't hear them calling this a smear job, thank God. They said: Let's get the facts.

Again, to repeat, the best way to get the facts is not to just plow through it. It is to have the FBI do what they have always done when new information comes up involving a nominee they may have already checked out: Reopen the background check and check out these new facts. It will not take long. It will be done quietly and in private, and then the Judiciary Committee members, on both sides of the aisle, can learn the same facts, done by an objective observer. That is all the American people want.

The American people see what is going on. They are looking at Judge Kavanaugh, and they are finding him less and less credible. That is why his nomination is in deep trouble. Perhaps that is why, in poll after poll, the plurality of Americans say Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

Let us get the facts. Let us stop smearing women who have the courage to come forward. Let's get to the bottom of this in a correct, appropriate, and dignified way. That is what the American people want, and that is what we should be doing in a bipartisan way in this Chamber.

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, in the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee, it is the Senate's job to carefully and thoroughly review the nominee's credentials, beliefs, background, and suitability for the position. Once confirmed, a Supreme Court Justice is not subject to review or to term limits. It is a lifetime appointment with immense responsibilities and powers. We have to examine any Supreme Court nominee in light of those facts.

Dr. Christina Blasey Ford has come forward with a credible allegation that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual misconduct. I believe her, but regardless of what you believe, she deserves to be heard in a deliberate and impartial manner, in a way that is dignified

and respectful to both sides and to her, with as much independently verified information gathered beforehand as possible. And now, of course, there are additional allegations about Judge Kavanaugh's actions that should be examined.

There is one simple way to get to the bottom of this without the he said, she said, without the finger-pointing and name-calling: a quiet, serious, thorough background check by the FBI. That is the logical way to go. The FBI is not biased. The FBI is professional. It is a crime to lie to them, so people have a large incentive to tell the truth.

Reopening an FBI investigation is a routine practice for judicial nominations. It has happened over and over again when new information has come up, and it only takes a short time to complete. It should be quiet, serious, and get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If my Republican friends are so concerned about this process being chaotic, they should want the FBI to handle these allegations because the FBI can conduct this investigation soberly, effectively, and discreetly. In fact, there is really only one way to get to the bottom of these allegations and prevent the Nation from being thrown into further turmoil--an independent background check by the FBI. On the one hand, our Republican colleagues decry the turmoil, but on the other hand, they avoid the careful, best, serious way to get at the allegations--a background check investigation by the FBI.

For some reason, both the White House and Senate Republicans are blocking an FBI investigation and questioning its purpose. Let me ask our Republican friends, President Trump, and America this question: If President Trump and Senate Republicans are so certain the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh aren't true, why aren't they welcoming the FBI to look into it?

Leader McConnell, you spent 5 minutes pointing your finger at Democrats. That shows someone who is in a pickle. That shows someone who has dug a deep hole. If you really believe these allegations are part of a despicable smear job, Leader McConnell, why don't you call for an FBI investigation? What are you afraid of? What are you hiding?

What is Judge Kavanaugh hiding? Nobody knows. But people who want the truth will find a truth teller. People who don't want the truth will run away from a truth teller and instead point fingers of accusation and wild, untethered allegations. That is what Leader McConnell is doing. It is not a great moment. I know he prizes his role in ramming through these rightwing Justices. That is part of his legacy. I don't think America will see it that way a few years from now when we see their rulings. There will be a huge backlash if Kavanaugh should get on the Court and they should rule the way they have ruled in the past. But that is not the search for truth; that is the search for a rush job to avoid the truth. It should not happen.

Think about it. The White House is blocking an impartial investigation of Dr. Ford's allegation. Chairman Grassley is setting arbitrary deadlines for Dr. Ford to testify, dictating the terms of her appearance, and denying her and the minority the right to call other witnesses, which always happens at hearings, including an alleged eyewitness. There was someone in the room. By press reports, he is backing up Kavanaugh. Why are they afraid to have him testify? Or at least he is saying he doesn't remember.

We are hearing that Chairman Grassley now wants to bring in outside counsel to conduct the questioning, as if Dr. Ford were on trial, as if Republicans were afraid to question Dr. Ford. This is so unusual, but it shows a fear on the part of our Republican friends that something bad and truthful will come out.

If Chairman Grassley and Leader McConnell continue down this road, we are heading for a hearing that will be far from what a serious factfinding inquiry should look like, far from respectful to Dr. Ford, and far from fair.

Given the circumstances, the American people should ask--particularly those who support Judge Kavanaugh--who is more credible: Dr. Ford, who wants the FBI to investigate her allegation because she is confident it will corroborate her account, or our Republican friends who are running away from any objective factfinding and truth?

Remember, it is Dr. Ford who not only wants the FBI to look into this, she took a voluntary lie detector test, and she knew she was inviting harassment and ridicule and abuse for coming forward. She has gotten death threats. She has had to move out of her house. She feared her life would be upended, and it is. She still had the courage to do this. We certainty owe her some dignity and a fair hearing, not the kind of rushed, almost kangaroo court-style hearing where the Members on the Republican side are afraid to even ask her questions and confront her while they will say things behind her back.

Who is more credible? Is it Dr. Ford, who is willing to submit to all this, or Republicans in the White House, who are stonewalling an FBI investigation into facts and who are refusing to call other witnesses to Dr. Ford's hearing, including the alleged eyewitness? Republicans or Democrats? There is an easy, easy answer to all of these. So when Leader McConnell rails and rants about Democrats, he is setting up a straw man. He is afraid of what might come out, what the truth is, it seems to me.

We have heard Judge Kavanaugh's defenders say: This happened 36 years ago; it shouldn't matter. We have heard new, tortured formulations of that shopworn excuse that boys will be boys. I don't agree with any of those voices, any of those excuses, but let me address those who think that, people who think: This was a long time ago. Boys did this. Let's not hold someone accountable for it 30 years later, or at least let's not stop his advancement in his career.

One obvious answer is, it is the Supreme Court. But I would ask those who believe that Kavanaugh is not being treated fairly to examine one more point: his credibility. Whether you think what happened 36 years ago is enough to remove him from consideration of the Supreme Court, as I do, or whether you don't, credibility of a Supreme Court nominee is extremely important.

Judge Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied this. He didn't say, like Mr. Judge, ``I can't remember. Maybe I had too many to drink, and my recollection isn't great''; he unequivocally denied it. And this comes on top of the fact that Judge Kavanaugh's testimony had real issues with credibility. Is Judge Kavanaugh again denying the truth because his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court hangs in the balance? The credibility of Judge Kavanaugh, given his previous testimony, given how he skirted the truth, at the very minimum, on issues such as appointment of certain judges, on torture, on Manny Miranda--and now he says this, an unequivocal denial?

Let's assume that after the testimony of Dr. Ford, most Americans believe it to be true. How would we want to appoint Judge Kavanaugh-- because he would have abjectly lied--if they believe it is true?

So there is the issue of credibility. Beyond the weight that different people give what happened 30-some-odd years ago, beyond the weight of whether people excuse or don't excuse the behavior--I don't excuse it--is the issue that looms: credibility. Is Judge Kavanaugh the kind of upright, straightforward individual we want on the Bench? Do his flirtations with avoiding the truth in his testimony--is this just another, even worse indication that he does not have the judgment, the moral character, the credibility for a job that requires all three?

In summation, in the face of multiple allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, the FBI should reopen the background check investigation, and we should conduct a hearing where the appropriate witnesses are called and respect is given to both the accuser and the accused. Anything less will be viewed by the American people and I believe judged by history as a stain on Republicans in the Senate and a stain on the integrity of the majesty of the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from Florida for his steadfast actions in the Senate for many years protecting Florida's waterways, which are not only a treasure to Floridians but to all of us in America. He deserves to be congratulated on that.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, last night, in the wake of extremely serious and troubling allegations about Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh, Chairman Grassley announced he would hold a hearing of the Judiciary Committee next Monday to examine the allegations. I want to salute the six Republican Members who I believe changed Senator Grassley's mind and Leader McConnell's mind. Their first instinct was, of course, to rush it through, have this ridiculous phone call with Republican staff and both of the now witnesses. That made no sense. But because a good number of our Republican friends said there ought to be a hearing and testimony, Senator Grassley and Senator McConnell backed off the position of no hearings, and we will have one.

It is a good thing that we will have hearings, and they have to be done right. There must be an agreement on witnesses, and the FBI should be given time to reopen its background check investigation into Judge Kavanaugh to speak to any potential witnesses or other relevant individuals and update its analysis. That way, Senators will have the necessary information and expert analysis at their disposal at the hearing, making it much less likely that it will devolve into a he said, she said affair.

Many say: Well, they have done background check investigations several times on Judge Kavanaugh. That is true, but none of those background investigations brought up this specific incident that Professor Ford says happened. I believe that it did. Because the FBI didn't know of these allegations before, reopening the background investigation into these specific allegations, interviewing Judge Kavanaugh, Professor Ford, Mr. Judge, and all other relevant witnesses, is necessary.

We have two diametrically opposed stories. In my view, Professor Ford is telling the truth. But if you don't want the hearing to be just a he said, she said affair, an independent investigation--a background check--by the FBI is essential.

This is not a criminal investigation. It has nothing to do with the statute of limitations. It is simply what the FBI does for all witnesses. When there are new and troubling allegations that emerge, there is nothing wrong--in fact, it is fundamentally right to reopen the background investigation so

that the FBI can query the witnesses involved, more so now than ever because there are two diametrically opposed stories. It will make the hearing far more valuable because once the Members see what the witnesses have said to the FBI, they will be able to ask much better questions, and they will be able to get at the truth. I think every American wants the truth--Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative. Instead, there is still an instinct from Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley to rush these things through.

The hearings must be done right, not rushed, fair to both sides, respectful to both parties, and as dignified as possible under the circumstances. Senators and witnesses need time to prepare testimony, and Senators who are not on the committee need time to review and consider that testimony once given. There must not be a hearing on Monday and then a possible vote on the nominee a day or two after.

This morning, Chairman Grassley said there would be only two witnesses. That is simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and a desire not to get at the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The minority has always been able to request a number of witnesses to provide context and expert opinion to the committee.

In this case, it certainly makes sense for one witness to be Mr. Mark Judge, who was named in the Washington Post as present during the event in question. How could we want to get at the truth and not have Mr. Judge come to the hearing and be asked questions? If the majority will not call him as a witness--as they should if they are really interested in getting the whole truth--the minority must be able to do so. The minority has always had a right to call witnesses.

But the bigger issue is that the committee must be able to call more than two witnesses in total. We must not repeat the mistake of the Anita Hill hearings. They were rushed and were a debacle. Do we want to repeat that mistake? We cannot let these hearings be even more rushed than the Anita Hill hearings.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hypocritical. Leader McConnell delayed the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Scalia. Leader McConnell delayed the filling of Justice Scalia's seat for 10 months, and now they are saying we can't take an additional 2 weeks to get to the truth of a very serious allegation? What hypocrisy. What a 180-degree turn, depending on who is charge and who is making the nomination. What a shame in this Senate.

Let's not rush the hearings. Let's not repeat the mistake that was made in the Anita Hill hearings. Let's call all of the relevant witnesses, not just two selected by Chairman Grassley, who didn't want to call the hearing to begin with. Let's do this fair and full and right, and whatever the outcome, the American people will at least think this Senate took a fair shot at getting to the truth.

One additional point, Madam President. Much of the focus these past few days has been on the nature of the allegations themselves, but there is another focus that is equally important, and that is Judge Kavanaugh's credibility.

Dr. Ford has made an exceptionally specific allegation, one she made years ago--I think 6 years ago--to a family therapist, long before Judge Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court. She volunteered to take a lie detector test, which she passed. Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile, has ``categorically and unequivocally'' denied the entire story. There is no wiggle room in that denial. He didn't say he didn't remember. It is a whole and complete denial. Someone is not telling the truth. Someone is not telling the truth.

Now, here is what President Trump said about sexual assault allegations, quoted in Bob Woodward's book:

You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these

women. If you admit to anything and any culpability, then

you're dead. . . . You've got to be strong. You've got to be

aggressive. You've got to push back hard. You've got to deny

anything that's said about you. Never admit.

So the question looms, Is Judge Kavanaugh taking a page from President Trump's playbook? Are the people advising Judge Kavanaugh telling him to follow President Trump's dishonest strategy? We don't know the answer, but it is certainly an important question.

If the facts of Dr. Ford's allegations prove to be true, as bad as they are, they bring up a second point that is equally damning--that the nominee is not credible. I can't understand why, but there are some who say: Well, it happened 40 years ago; we should ignore it. These are not typical things that happened to people 40 years ago; these allegations are very serious stuff. But even if people want to dismiss it--and I hope they will not--there is the issue of credibility.

It wouldn't be the first time questions were raised about the judge's credibility. Facing a confirmation vote for the DC Circuit in 2004, Brett Kavanaugh told Senator Feinstein that the White House didn't know about any potential judicial nominees' views on abortion in the vast majority of cases. Recently released emails show that wasn't entirely accurate. Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowledge of the Bush administration's policy on detention and interrogation, but recently released emails show that wasn't accurate. Judge Kavanaugh denied working on the controversial nomination of Judge William Pryor, but recently released emails show that wasn't accurate either.

In the case of Dr. Ford's allegations, the Senate and the American people must ask themselves, once again: Is Judge Kavanaugh's complete denial credible? Both can't be true. What Dr. Ford is saying and what Judge Kavanaugh is saying cannot be true. That is why we need hearings, that is why we need a bunch of witnesses, and that is why we need the FBI to continue its investigation--because there is an issue of credibility here. When you are nominating someone to the highest Court in the land, their credibility should be unimpeachable.

Mueller Investigation

Mr. President, now on another matter, last night, President Trump ordered the declassification of documents related to an ongoing investigation into his own campaign and administration, which seems to be a transparent attempt to give his legal team a sneak peek at the government's investigative materials against this campaign. Just on its face alone, the action by President Trump is an abuse of power and a direct slap in the face of the rule of law and even more troubling because President Trump regularly abuses power.

Even more troubling, law enforcement officials have informed Congress that some of the disclosures will put at risk the most sensitive sources and methods of our Nation's law enforcement and intelligence professionals. There are thousands of Americans risking their lives as informants in our intelligence services. If they can be exposed on the whim of a President for political purposes, what does that say to them? What does that say to future recruits, to the CIA, to the NSA, and so many of these other agencies that are so important to our national security?

It is a disgrace that the President did it. I have to say, it is an equal disgrace that our Republican leadership in the House lets a small band of House renegades, led by Chairman Nunes of the Intelligence Committee, help undermine our intelligence agencies and the brave men and women who risk their lives for us for his political purpose.

It is just like the infamous memo prepared by Representative Nunes and the fake wiretapping scam. President Trump and a handful of his water carriers in the House are willing to go to any length to cherry- pick, distort, and invent materials to discredit the Mueller investigation, even when our national security and the safety of the millions of Americans protected by the men and women in our intelligence agencies are on the line.

This latest disclosure by President Trump is a blatant abuse of power. It is the action of a dictator in a banana republic. It is not politics as usual. It is not just Democrats and Republicans bandying things about. It has never really happened before. It will make America less safe.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the past few days, new allegations have come to light about President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. These allegations ought to be treated with the utmost gravity. The allegations are extremely credible. They were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test and had been discussed in the past--long before Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court--with a family therapist. I believe her, and many, many Americans believe her. Many women in America who have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. For too long, women have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. It would be a disgrace if this body and our fellow Republicans let that happen.

Chairman Grassley must postpone the vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. The FBI conducted a background check on Judge Kavanaugh before these allegations were known. When they did their background check, the FBI had no knowledge of what went on, so it is now the FBI's responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis of Judge Kavanaugh's background, and report back to the Senate.

The FBI is the right place for this investigation for two reasons:

First, the FBI has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way--far better than some staffer talking to Professor Ford on the phone. You cannot lie to the FBI--that is a crime. The FBI will get to the truth. They almost always do.

Second, our Republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan confirmation process, and then they immediately insinuated that Dr. Ford is being untruthful. Republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations; they have already said that they are not true. Republicans and their staff cannot do this in a respected way because they have run such a partisan investigation thus far. There is no bipartisanship here--none--so to have any credibility, this has to be done by an independent, outside body. The FBI is the best one.

The vote must be postponed until it is complete. It would be an insult to the women of America to rush this through after these serious allegations have been made. It would be an insult to the majesty of the Supreme Court to rush this through when these serious allegations have come forward.

In addition, Dr. Ford has said she is willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Does anyone believe it is better for staff to talk to her on the phone--Republican staff only because no Democratic staff will participate in this biased, far-fetched process. Does anyone think it is not better for her to come testify? Then why can't she? Chairman Grassley should provide the American people the forum to hear her out. I believe she is credible. A lot of my Republican friends don't. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that she might be very persuasive? Well, if she is, it will be a whole different ball game, won't it?

Chairman Grassley should and must provide the American people the forum to hear her out and decide for themselves whether her testimony reflects on Judge Kavanaugh's character and fitness for the Supreme Court. Of course, he can have a chance to testify again, too, and both of them said they would. Why in the Good Lord's Name--why wouldn't we do that? Why? There is no reason. No reason. There is no requirement, rule, or precedent that says the Judiciary Committee must move forward on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination this week--none. What is the reason we have to rush it through when these allegations are hanging out there, when women who are victimized deserve the right to be heard at the very minimum?

Then the gall of my dear friend the Republican leader, who delayed Justice Scalia's seat being filled for 9 months, to say that we can't take a couple of extra weeks--unmitigated gall. The seat of Justice Scalia was held open for a long time, and now, with no reason, my colleague says we can't do that.

Chairman Grassley has to stop playing games, pretending like the nomination can continue to glide through while at the same time the Senate conducts a review of these allegations. Hastily arranged private phone calls with committee staff members is not even close to constituting a fair and thorough review, is not part of any sort of regular order, and does not substitute for an FBI background check or public hearing.

Again, let me ask my dear friend the leader, what is the reason, now that both Judge Kavanaugh and Professor Ford have said they will come and testify, that we won't do it? Give me one good reason. One. It is unrelated to how we became aware of these allegations. Whether you like it or not, there is a right for them to be heard.

With allegations as serious as the ones before us, the Senate must not--it cannot for the honor of the Senate--conduct a haphazard, slipshod review of Dr. Ford's claims or be rushed to a vote. There must be time for the FBI to do its work and for the Judiciary Committee to properly prepare to hear testimony from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

There is another issue here. Judge Kavanaugh's credibility has already

been seriously questioned in the aftermath of his testimony regarding emails stolen from the Judiciary Committee by a Republican staff member, his involvement in the nomination of Judge William Pryor, and other controversies. In all of these cases, Judge Kavanaugh's credibility was questioned because documents revealed that he was far more involved than he led on to when he testified.

Now, he has unequivocally denied this. So there is an issue of credibility here. You have two people with diametrically opposed views as to what happened. This is not just an argument for its own sake; it is for a nomination to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, which determines through their legal rulings the lives of Americans and in many instances is seen as the arbiter of right and wrong.

Are we going to let this happen, not even hear what someone who believes she was terribly aggrieved--and I believe her--has to say? When the credibility of a Supreme Court Justice is on the line, we are going to just brush it under the rug--again, after delaying Merrick Garland for over 1 year--with no explanation as to why we can't wait a much shorter period of time? The double standard, the twisting of this body into a cruel, nasty partisanship, unprecedented, in a feverish desire to fill the bench with people with whom the other side agrees-- it is one of the lowest points I have seen in my years here.

I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have called for hearings. I believe one way or another, six have said this should be delayed. I hope they will be strong. I hope they will tell Leader McConnell he is doing the wrong thing. Dr. Ford deserves to be heard. To railroad a vote now would be a deep insult to the women of America and a lasting scar on the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Opioid Epidemic

Madam President, now on another matter, tonight the Senate will take up legislation that will help our country fight back against the opioid epidemic. The bill will help people from all backgrounds and all ages and is designed to address the spectrum of opioid addiction. That means medical prevention and law enforcement prevention, reversing overdoses, helping those in treatment, and enabling those in recovery to get back to their lives.

On this one, we have had real bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass major funding increases to fight the opioid crisis. When we consider the Labor-HHS appropriations bill this week--I hope we will see it signed into law soon by the President-- Congress will have appropriated $7 billion over 2 years to address opioid addiction, and that funding is now making its way to the States.

The legislation we will consider this week is another side of the same coin. The funding increases are important, and now this bill will complement those efforts by making important policy changes and creating new programs to help providers, first responders, law enforcement, communities, and families fight back against the scourge of addiction. Stopping this crisis will take a multifaceted effort, and this bill recognizes that fact.

I want to thank Members on my side whose legislation is included in this bill: Senators Baldwin, Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, Nelson, Casey, Heitkamp, and Klobuchar. Many more Democratic Senators contributed to this bill, as did many Republicans, and I thank them for their hard work.

Addiction has held too many Americans in its grip for too long. We cannot let up our efforts to fight this scourge. In the coming days and weeks, Congress will work diligently on merging the Senate bill with the House bill that has already passed. It is my sincere hope that we will come to an agreement and that we will have a new opioid law signed in the future.

Hurricane Florence

Madam President, along with so many others, my heart goes out to the people of the Carolinas and surrounding States. To see the pictures of houses being flooded--it breaks your heart to see the devastation. It reminded me of what happened in my State a few years ago with Sandy. Our hearts go out to these people.

The Federal Government always pulls together when part of the Nation has a problem. I am not going to look up the voting record of those from the other side who are now going to ask for aid when they voted no when my State was so beleaguered. I don't believe that is the proper way to approach this. They are suffering, and we need to be there for them.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday was the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks--an event that changed my city and our country forever. I spent the morning at the 9/11 Memorial in Lower Manhattan. Two deep scars in the Earth remind us where mighty towers once stood.

I will never forget that day, nor the next: the phones--when they worked--ringing endlessly; the smell of death; the lines of hundreds of people holding homemade signs--I will never forget that--as I walked there. President Bush sent a plane, and we went to Ground Zero the day after. Hundreds of people were lined up asking: ``Have you seen my father Joe?'' ``Have you seen my daughter Mary?'' The towers had crashed, but no one knew how many people had survived. It was awful.

Mr. President, 3,000 souls were lost in one day--one of the bloodiest days on American soil since the Civil War--people I knew: a guy I played basketball with in high school, a businessman who helped me on my way up, a firefighter with whom I went around the city to ask people to donate blood.

Seventeen years ago today, September 12, 2001, I called on Americans to wear the flag in remembrance of those who were lost, the brave men and women who rushed to find those who might still be alive. I have worn that flag every single day since. I will wear it every day of my life for the rest of my life in remembrance of those who were lost.

This year, I want to turn everyone's attention to a harrowing statistic. By the end of 2018, we expect that more people will have died from exposure to toxic chemicals on 9/11 than were killed on that day itself. Last year, 23 current or former members of the New York Police Department died of 9/11-related diseases--the same number who died on September 11. A new tablet was recently installed at the Hall of Heroes at One Police Plaza to commemorate all the new deaths of members of the FDNY. There is now an American living with a 9/11- related illness in every one of the 50 States and 429 of the 436 congressional districts. I guess they have 436 counting the District of Columbia.

Just as we will never forget the bravery so many fallen Americans showed that terrible day, let us never forget those first responders who did survive, only to contract cancer or a respiratory illness from breathing in a toxic cocktail of dust and ash at Ground Zero.

Nearly a decade ago, I was proud, along with my colleague from New York, to pass the Zadroga Act to provide healthcare for our first responders and a victim compensation fund to help survivors who get sick and the families who lost a loved one to illness. Three years ago, I was proud to work across the aisle to make the healthcare component of the Zadroga Act virtually permanent.

Next year, however, Congress must reauthorize the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund because the administrator of the fund now predicts that the funding will not last until 2020, as we had previously hoped. So many new claims are being filed because so many of these deadly cancers are now showing up. As the death tally from 9/11 continues to grow, we have to make sure the fund is capitalized with enough money to provide an ever longer list of 9/11 victims. So I want to remind my colleagues that soon we have to come together once again to do what is right for the families of the first responders and the surviving first responders themselves who, without hesitation, risked their lives to save other lives 17 years ago yesterday.