Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, as you know this week we are voting and considering an important bipartisan piece of legislation known as America's Water Infrastructure Act, the most sweeping infrastructure package to be considered by Congress this year. It will literally reauthorize billions of dollars of spending for our Nation's ports, harbors, and waterways, and it will end wasteful spending on water projects that are no longer necessary.

I thank Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper for spearheading this legislation through the Committee on Environment and Public Works. They deserve a tremendous amount of credit for bringing us to where we are today.

Drinking water, wastewater systems, dams, levees, ports, and reservoirs matter to every single community in America. They are usually not front and center on our priority list, though, so people naturally take them for granted. We take it as a given that water will be available, that it will be treated and filtered, that wastewater will somehow be transported wherever it needs to go, and that dams and levees will hold up when they are put to the test by rising floods.

Actually, though, that is not the case in many parts of the world, and we in America do take that for granted because usually none of these present a problem to most Americans. None of these problems happen in the United States if public and Federal resources are allocated in the right ways, and that is why we can't afford to let our guard down and be lax when it comes to maintaining these important national treasures.

That is what makes this bill we are voting on so crucial. It is not just a drop in the bucket, so to speak. It is one of the main reasons the bucket--

our Nation's entire public water capacity--functions at all.

As Chairman Barrasso has said, many pieces of our water infrastructure systems are aging and in need of serious attention. They need to be repaired, replaced, and other long-awaited projects need to begin.

I know that because some of those projects happen to be in my State of Texas. Following last year's devastating Hurricane Harvey, a catastrophic rain event, the likes of which the Houston region had never seen before, the gaps in our infrastructure became acutely apparent. As we began the recovery process, one thing became clear to us: There isn't much sense in rebuilding without ensuring the region can withstand major weather events in the future. So it is not just about fixing what was damaged; it is about making sure future infrastructure will not be damaged because it has been brought up to standard.

So one piece of the bill we will be voting on this week will be to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite a study on the so-called coastal spine that will run up and down portions of the gulf coast. This is a new multilayered system of storm surge and flood mitigation improvements to address our most acute vulnerabilities. The crucial first step is fully funding the proper engineering study, and that is what we are going to do in this bill.

I want to emphasize, this is not just some parochial matter. It is not just something that matters to the city of Houston and the gulf coast region. This is an important national resource. It is important to our national security, and it is vital to our national economy.

A second thing this bill does for Texas is authorize a project from an area known as the Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay. Across more than 4,000 square miles of South Texas, this bill will update the levee systems and, in some cases, construct new ones in order to better protect the area from storms and hurricanes.

In places that were dramatically affected by Hurricane Harvey, like Clear Creek and Brays Bayou, funds will be used to widen channels, construct detention basins, replace bridges, and renovate dams. Importantly, these projects include cost-share requirements, a reflection of the partnership between the State and local officials and the Federal Government when it comes to flood mitigation.

As Texas communities continue to rebuild from Hurricane Harvey and prepare for future storms, it is critical that we take these steps to ensure the coastal region can better withstand major weather events. I am grateful that once we vote on this bill, we will be one step closer toward completing these important projects, as well as many others.

Finally, it is important to note that in many ways, the provisions of this bill represent a continuation of efforts we began last fall. As my colleagues will recall, in the weeks and months following Hurricane Harvey, Congress passed three separate aid bills totaling $147 billion for Harvey and other natural disasters.

Then, in February, my colleagues and I secured nearly $4 billion in the Omnibus appropriations bill to advantage the Sabine Pass to Galveston project I just mentioned.

So as we move toward passage of this important piece of legislation, it is important to remember, this is sort of the bricks-and-mortar work Congress needs to do. It doesn't gather a lot of attention. There is not a lot of controversy. Unlike a Supreme Court appointment, we don't see thousands of people gathering in the Mall or in the halls or in front of the Capitol, but it is simply the fundamental, basic building blocks we need to construct in order to keep our country safe and prosperous.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to the Clark nomination occur at 2:15 p.m. today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as if under the previous order.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Consumer Data Privacy: Examining Lessons From the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act.''

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``From Yellowstone's Grizzly Bear to the Chesapeake's Delmarva Fox Squirrel--Successful State Conservation, Recovery, and Management of Wildlife.''

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Threats to the Homeland.''

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, and Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Rossie David Alston, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Pamela A. Barker, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, and Sarah Daggett Morrison, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio.

subcommittee on readiness and management support

The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

Mr. President, it was good to get back home to Texas over the weekend and on Columbus Day. I had a chance to travel to far West Texas, out to El Paso, TX, and catch up with some of my friends and constituents there on some important issues they care an awful lot about.

While we in Washington have been focused on Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court for the last 90 days or so, a lot of other important things have been happening back in Texas and around the country.

For example, on August 1, Dr. Jim Allison, affiliated with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, won the Nobel Prize in medicine, along with a researcher from Japan. This is really important work. It was a culmination of 25 years of effort, and I am sure something Jim would have never even dreamed of as he grew up in the small town of Alice, TX, 45 minutes from Corpus Christi. He has come a long way since then. We are very proud of him, and today we send our congratulations to Dr. Allison and to the entire MD Anderson team on a tremendous accomplishment.

Dr. Allison developed a new way to treat cancer using T cells. His method unleashes a patient's immune system to attack tumors. In other words, it is your own immune system that is triggered to attack the tumors that are attacking the patient. This is called immune checkpoint therapy. It has resulted in the development of numerous drugs that have the potential to save lives. None other than our former President, Jimmy Carter, is now cancer free because of this type of therapy, but he is just one of the most famous of many examples.

In the not so distant past, cancer could be treated in only one of three ways: through surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. A friend of mine gave me the book--I think it was a Pulitzer Prize winning book-- called ``The Emperor of All Maladies,'' which was also a documentary. To be honest, the way that the medical profession treated cancer in the early days was pretty primitive: surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. But now, thanks to people like Dr. Allison and MD Anderson, cancer patients have other options.

Dr. Allison is sometimes referred to as the ``Godfather of cancer immunotherapy,'' and the drugs he has helped to develop have now been approved to treat not only melanoma and lung cancer but also Hodgkins lymphoma and cancers of the kidney, bladder, liver and stomach.

But despite the great strides made by this Nobel Prize-winning Texan, immunotherapy is still in the very early stages of development. Dr. Allison said there are nearly 2,000 immunotherapy trials in progress around the Nation, including 200 at MD Anderson alone. That gives my colleagues an idea of the number of people and the ongoing efforts that are working to extend the scientific frontiers of cancer treatment.

Much of this work, of course, would not be possible without the funding that is provided by the American taxpayer through State and Federal funding. The National Institutes of Health remains the largest funding mechanism, but in Texas we have done our part by investing $3 billion over 10 years through the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, commonly known as CPRIT.

Here in the Senate and in the House, working together with the administration, we have been promoting cancer research in several overlapping ways. I recently met with Dr. Shanlin Shah and learned about the fascinating proton therapy that MD Anderson has pioneered. Conversations like that are a great way that we in Congress, who are obviously not experts, can try to stay on top of rapidly advancing research.

But even more important is what we do here collectively to fund that research. We have increased funding by $2 billion to the National Institutes of Health. With that increase, close to $6 billion is now going to the National Cancer Institute, and an additional $100 million is being put toward the so-called Cancer Moonshot that Joe Biden and others touted and which all of us working together voted to create. The Moonshot will accelerate research regarding high mortality cancers.

As a part of the Moonshot initiative, the National Institutes of Health has partnered with biopharmaceutical companies to launch what is known as the Partnership for Accelerating Cancer or PACT, as it is called. PACT is a 5-year public-private research collaboration totaling $215 million. Hopefully, it will identify new biomarkers and develop new immunotherapy treatments.

Dr. Allison, whom I mentioned earlier, has spoken about how crucial this government funding effort really is. Of course, like I said, while we are caught up in the fights of the day here on the floor of the Senate, a lot of good work gets done that the American people don't hear about. So that is why it is so important to emphasize this point.

While biotech and pharmaceutical companies fund the late-stage research that brings well-developed therapies into clinical trials, the early funding of basic science, which makes that possible, often comes from the money provided by the U.S. Government through the National Institutes of Health. Without it, Dr. Allison said, ``many of the therapies that currently treat millions of cancer patients worldwide simply wouldn't exist.''

That is an important point too. It is not just treating cancer here in America. The science and the developments, the research and the cures that are developed at places like MD Anderson Hospital in Houston, TX, benefit the whole world.

I remember one of the last times I was at MD Anderson for a townhall meeting with Senator McConnell, the majority leader, and Senator John McCain, our recently departed colleague from Arizona. At the time, I was told that patients from 90 different countries come to MD Anderson in Houston, TX, because of their expertise treating cancer.

So this is not just a local or national phenomenon. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

It is not just the government, of course, that helps to fund this important research. Philanthropists are also invaluable when it comes to this sort of research as well. I am thinking about my friends Peggy and Lowry Mays of San Antonio, TX. Thanks to their generosity, San Antonio's premier cancer center, which is one of only four in Texas with the National Cancer Institute's elite designation, is entering into an entirely new era. Their donations and their generosity will provide an endowment to support the director of the cancer center, and it will also fund new faculty recruitment and retention initiatives for generations to come. This is just another way

that generous people with big hearts are making a difference. It is not just government. It is government working together with people like the Mays to get these things done.

What all of this shows, of course, is that when serious and sustained effort is applied and money is invested, there is a lot of progress that we can make in dealing with things that never would have even been considered treatable years earlier, not that many years ago, and there is always more to be learned.

This calls to mind something the great Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb, once said: ``When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this--you haven't.'' We haven't exhausted all possibilities, as Dr. Allison's path-breaking work clearly shows--not even close. We have so much more to discover and understand. With science advancing at practically lightning speed, I believe it is not a question of if we cure cancer but when.

That comes as good news for families all across this country of ours because almost no family has been spared. Even when we don't have a close friend or immediate family member who has undergone radiation treatment or chemotherapy, we know stories of famous people, such as Steve Jobs, Aretha Franklin, and even our friend John McCain, recently departed. They passed away from pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma. For others we know, it was oral cancer or lung cancer. Cancer respects no persons and observes no differences between the wealthy and the poor or race or ethnicity. But if we are lucky, we are also blessed to know cancer survivors who, thanks to medical innovation, have a new shot at life. They have undergone hardships and treatment that the rest of us might find difficult to even imagine, but they have endured by their spirit, and they have inspired all of us to keep working, whether it be at the Mays Cancer Center in San Antonio, at MD Anderson in Houston, or up here in Washington, where we work to fund research through legislation. Like Thomas Edison said, we will never exhaust all of the possibilities, so we must not give up. We must keep trying.

Working with generous donors, as well as undaunted scientific researchers like Dr. Allison and his team, I hope we will continue to apply our time and talents to finding answers and yielding newer and greater discoveries.

To all the younger generations--some in towns not unlike Alice, TX-- to all of those who are wondering what they might want to be when they grow up, look no further than Dr. Jim Allison. Look how much he has accomplished through his life's work. He is a good example of the type of person you can aspire to be and what is possible if you try.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as the world knows now, we just held a successful cloture vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to become the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am glad we were successful in closing off debate. We now know that under the Senate rules, 30 hours are available for Senators to debate, and I am sure there will be many Senators who will be coming to the floor and offering their thoughts.

To my mind, what the Senate just voted for was to end the games, the character assassination, and the intimidation tactics that unfortunately have characterized so much of this confirmation process. Our vote today was important, not only because it will allow us to move forward and conclude this confirmation process, but it was important because it showed the Senate will not be intimidated. We will not be bullied by the streams of paid protesters and name-calling by the mob. We will not be complicit in the attempts to tarnish a good man's character, destroy his career, and further delay this confirmation process--a constitutional process of advice and consent.

What has been particularly galling on the part of some of our colleagues over the last 24 hours is the fact that the FBI investigation they called for, they are virtually ignoring or, in some cases, disparaging. They called for that supplemental background investigation just last Friday. Let's all remember what our friend the senior Senator from Minnesota said last weekend. He said: Let's give this 1 week. Well, that is what we gave them. The junior Senator from Delaware asked for the same period of time at the hearing--a 1-week- long FBI investigation.

Our colleagues got what they asked for, and unfortunately, since they had already decided to vote against the nomination, they must have been somewhat disappointed that the supplemental background investigation came up with no new information, no corroboration at all.

I actually think, in some ways, our colleagues who called for a 1- week delay have done us a favor because every lead that could be followed has been followed and exhausted. As the majority leader was saying earlier, in America, under our constitutional system, where we don't presume you are guilty and require you to prove your innocence and where we believe in due process of law, I think the FBI investigation was a useful way to demonstrate to the American people that none of these allegations that had been made against Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has been proven.

It also, I think, gives us a chance to pivot from what has been a shameful and disgraceful confirmation process. If this is the new norm for the Senate--that somebody could be denied a confirmation based on an unproven allegation--I can't imagine people would be willing to subject themselves to that in the future. It would be a dark day for the Senate, for the United States, and for our system of justice that believes in a fair process and a constitutional presumption of innocence. When an allegation is made, the person making that allegation actually has to come forward with some evidence.

A number of Senators--actually, it was a bipartisan consensus--wanted the FBI to conduct a limited investigation into current, credible allegations that were pending. They wanted the FBI to interview individuals like Mark Judge, who had already offered a sworn statement under penalty of felony, and others who may have had information who were identified by Dr. Ford as being present on the day this alleged activity took place. There was no confirmation. There was no corroboration.

In fact, there was a refutation. The people she said were there and could be witnesses to what happened said: I have no knowledge of that.

Dr. Ford's best friend, Leland Kaiser, said: I don't even know Brett Kavanaugh. I never met him.

Well, we have all had an opportunity to read the confidential report. We have seen who was interviewed, what they were asked. Any doubts people may have had should now have been put to rest by what the contents reveal. These fantasies about Judge Kavanaugh being some sort of serial high school or college predator have been exposed as only that--myths not based on fact. There is no reliable evidence, whatsoever, to support any of these baseless allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

As we know, this wasn't exactly designed to be a truth-finding process. This wasn't a search for the truth. Our colleagues across the aisle already made up their mind a long time ago, some even before Judge Kavanaugh had been nominated. This was more of, as the majority leader said earlier today, not a search for the truth but a search-and- destroy mission.

Obviously, as they continue to move the goalposts, calling for more delays, more investigations, there have been seven background investigations by the FBI of Judge Kavanaugh during his public service. The FBI talked to more than 150 witnesses. Don't you think, if there were anything to these outrageous allegations, some of that would have come up at some point in the seven FBI background investigations that have been conducted?

But our colleagues across the aisle continue to resist, putting a definitive end to this process and unfortunately caring little, if any, about the reputation of somebody who has demonstrated his outstanding qualifications and his commitment to public service. I think some of these attacks have become exhausting, politically exhausting, quite frankly.

Our colleagues don't realize what they have unleashed when Senators get coat hangers mailed to their home, paid protesters show up on their doorstep or at their office or they are accosted in the Halls of the U.S. Congress. These paid protesters reportedly, once they get arrested, actually make more money from their funders than they do if they don't get arrested. That is what has been unleashed.

Chairman Grassley called it mob rule, and that is exactly right-- where the Judiciary Committee, during the first confirmation hearing for Judge Kavanaugh, Senators said: I am breaking the rules. I am releasing committee confidential information. I know the rules prohibit me from doing that--and they don't care.

If there are no rules and there are no norms and if we don't have enough respect for this institution and the people whose lives we touch, this is what gets unleashed.

I feel bad for Dr. Ford, in particular. She wanted none of this three-ring circus. She sent a letter to the ranking member and asked that her identity remain confidential, only to find, after the first confirmation hearing, that it was leaked to the press. Then the press came to talk to her, and I guess she figured she had no other recourse but to actually tell her story to the press once her wishes were violated. She didn't consent to that. She didn't authorize the release of that confidential letter to the press, but that is what happened.

When we gave her an opportunity to have a bipartisan, professional investigation, to have staff go out to California and interview her confidentially, she said: Nobody explained to me that was an option. Well, the lawyers that the ranking member referred her to apparently didn't even tell their own client she had the opportunity to avoid this three-ring circus and the embarrassment associated with it by doing something confidentially.

That is how the Judiciary Committee ordinarily operates when allegations are made. They are investigated by committee staff or by the FBI--actually by both--but that didn't happen here until after this mob rule unleashed what we have seen here in the last few weeks.

We know, when Dr. Ford sent her letter to the ranking member, it wasn't shared with the FBI initially. It wasn't shared with Judiciary Committee investigators. It wasn't shared with the committee itself in a closed-door session, which followed the open session, where Judge Kavanaugh was asked about other personal matters that came up during the course of the background investigation. The ranking member didn't even attend that closed-door session, nor did anybody mention it to the judge when he went to talk to some 60-plus Members of the Senate one- on-one.

The ranking member, when she had that one-on-one meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, said nothing to him about the allegations. She could have asked him about the allegations, generally, without revealing the identity of Dr. Ford. We know at that point, she had already talked to Dr. Ford and recommended partisan lawyers. We know those lawyers arranged for a polygraph examination to be administered. Other preparations were being made, plans were being hatched. Our colleague from California said nothing.

I really think that Dr. Ford has been treated terribly by this ambush, by this hiding of evidence and allegations that could have been investigated and should have been investigated in a more dignified and appropriate sort of way.

Once Dr. Ford was identified, in consultation with colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--we decided Dr. Ford should be given an opportunity to tell her side of the story. Unfortunately, we were not able to mitigate or reverse a lot of the awful circumstances under which she had found herself because of what had already been unleashed, but we did our best. We tried to do whatever we could to accommodate her. As I said, investigators offered to go to California. We brought in an experienced sexual crimes investigating attorney to ask questions in a respectful sort of way in order to illicit as much information as we possibly could get about her claim even though it was 35 years old.

Throughout the hearing, we listened to Dr. Ford, and we tried to understand what she was telling us. We took her allegations seriously and treated her in the same way we would have wanted our wives or our daughters to have been treated if they had found themselves in similar circumstances. Yet we knew, at the end of the day, there was no other witness to corroborate or to confirm what she had said, even by the ones she had identified as having been present.

This is not about believing women or believing men. It is not a zero- sum game. As the junior Senator from Nebraska said the other day, it is not about being for the #MeToo movement or against it. Who could be against it?

I hope there is some good that comes out of this disgraceful display. One of the things that might be good would be that more women would feel confident in coming forward and telling their stories to the appropriate authorities and producing the sort of information that would be necessary to make a criminal case--to investigate the case, to charge the case, to try the case, and to convict the people who commit sexual offenses. I hope there is some good that comes out of this. There is also, maybe, some legislation that we could work on together to try to heal the wounds that have been caused by this abominable process.

I have worked a lot with colleagues here to pass anti-human trafficking legislation, to end the rape kit backlog, and on other things to try to help victims. I think, maybe--just maybe--in putting our heads together, in talking with each other, and in working in good faith, we could come up with some legislative response that might find some good from this terrible situation.

The other thing about these allegations that have been made against Judge Kavanaugh is that they are completely out of character. We know he has been a circuit court judge for 12 years, authored more than 300 opinions, clerked for Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, worked at the White House as a lawyer and as Staff Secretary for the President, taught at Harvard, and had been hired by now Justice Elena Kagan to teach at Harvard, as well as having taught at Georgetown and Yale.

By all accounts--every account of anyone with personal knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh's character and treatment of women--he has treated women with respect. And it is not just conservatives who sing his praises. A liberal law school professor at Yale called Judge Kavanaugh's selection the President's finest hour, his classiest move. The same professor complimented Judge Kavanaugh's studiousness and said he has already shown flashes of greatness. Lisa Blatt, a self-described liberal feminist lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, has said Judge Kavanaugh is supremely qualified. That echoes what the American Bar Association has said--the gold standard for some of our colleagues when it comes to judicial nominees. The American Bar Association has said that Judge Kavanaugh is unanimously well qualified. That goes for his temperament as well. So I believe this nominee is about as good as it gets.

On July 10, the day after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated, I said that my Republican colleagues and I would not back down from this all-out assault on this nominee, but never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that this fight would devolve into the mob rule that we have seen--of Senators and staffs taunted, threatened, and of millions of dollars spent in advertising and in paying protesters to show up on Senators' front lawns, to harass them at restaurants, and to attack them in the halls of Congress. I never imagined that this would get this bad, when Senators would say ``I am breaking the rules'' and would dare anybody to do anything about it. This has turned into the kind of nasty and venomous politics that I had hoped never to experience.

This also has demonstrated the dark underbelly of Washington, DC, where power is so important to some people that they will do anything to get it. They will destroy you. They will tarnish your good name. They will condone threats on family members, including on children. They will harass you. This has really been disgusting.

I am an optimist, so I don't believe this is our fate. I don't believe we are condemned to work in a Senate and live in a country where this kind of activity is condoned or ignored. Actually, I think, by defeating Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, we would be signaling that this is somehow the new normal. We would be setting the precedent of, yes, that kind of thing works, so let's try it again. I am not saying it is just one party or the other.

The day after Judge Kavanaugh was nominated, I also said we would defend the record of Judge Kavanaugh, who is a thoughtful public servant, against deliberate attempts to denigrate him. I stand by that statement, and we have defended him. Yet we have not just defended him but have defended the Constitution, fundamental notions of fairness and fair play that are reflected in

our commitment to the due process of law, and the rights of somebody who has been accused of a crime, which Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of on multiple occasions.

Even as the mud has been slung on all of us, even as insults have been hurled against this nominee and as his family has faced ridicule over atrocious exploits that never even happened, at least, I think, we can be proud of the fact we have tried to defend the Constitution, this institution of the Senate, and have pushed back with everything we have had against mob rule.

Unfortunately, those who wanted to take down this nominee viewed Judge Kavanaugh as a sacrificial lamb in some sort of vengeance campaign. Thankfully, they have now failed to stop his nomination from going forward.

This nomination is no longer simply about Judge Kavanaugh and the current vacancy on the Supreme Court; it is also about the principles we must stand up for and defend. It is about validating public service and decades of honorable conduct. It is not about forgetting all that a man has done, all that he is, and all that he has worked for at the drop of a hat based on unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations. It is about standing firm in the turbulent political winds. If I think about any institution in this country, I think about the Senate and how it ought to be the place in which standing firm against the turbulent political winds occurs.

We all had a chance to read the FBI report, which failed to corroborate Dr. Ford's allegations. Then we did exactly what we needed to do today, which was to vote--to stop the circus, to stop the high jinks, to stop the character assassination, and vote. I am glad our colleagues decided to close off debate now as this 30-hour postcloture period ensues. I look forward to concluding the confirmation process and confirming Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, in a few moments we will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is time.

Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated. Today marks the 90th day since President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh. So this is in line with the timeframe for previous Justices.

What is different, though, about this nomination is the manifest unfairness in the way it was conducted and in the tone and behavior of some Senators, as well as the special interest groups that support them.

This institution used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, but you wouldn't know it now on this nomination.

The Senator from Maine said yesterday that we have hit rock bottom when it comes to the judicial confirmation process and, sadly, I agree--this, despite the heroic efforts of Senator Grassley, who along with his staff, has been magnificent as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

What precipitated this embarrassing period for the Senate was the intentional and deliberate withholding of Dr. Ford's allegations from the Judiciary Committee and Judge Kavanaugh until the 11th hour, and then publicly ambushing everyone else concerned.

It has been a process that, in words that echo from another dark period for the Senate, the McCarthy hearings, has been cruel, reckless, and indecent, both to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

Still, despite these hijinks and the weaponization of the confirmation process, we bent over backwards to try to accommodate Dr. Ford once she said she wanted to come before the committee.

We know she requested confidentiality as her allegations were investigated. She did not consent to nor authorize the release of her letter. She didn't want a public spectacle. Judiciary Committee staff even offered to fly to California on a bipartisan basis and interview her confidentially, but this offer was not even shared with her by her partisan lawyers. In other words, she said she never understood that offer was on the table. She thought the only way she could tell her story was

in the midst of the three-ring circus that that hearing became.

But after the damage to her was done when her identity became known, we invited Dr. Ford to testify. She came and did so, and I respect and admire her courage. It could not have been easy. We listened respectfully to her story. We took it very seriously. We treated her the same way we would want our wives or daughters to be treated, and we tried to learn the facts--cold hard facts--as elicited by an expert in dealing with sexual assault cases.

We all know after the hearing what that attorney told us because it became public. She said, as a prosecutor, she would never recommend charges under these circumstances because, in her view, there was no corroboration of Dr. Ford's account and there were inconsistencies in her story regarding the place, the time, and the people involved in relevant events. In other words, this was not a case of he said, she said. It was a case of she said, they said, including everyone Dr. Ford claimed was a witness. Not only was there no corroboration, but the alleged witnesses refuted her claim, including her best friend, Leland Keyser, who said she never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Even after all of that, even after hiding information that should have been shared confidentially with the Judiciary Committee, even after the outrageous conduct by some Senators at the first hearing, intentionally violating committee rules and seeking delay after delay, even after that, we took another additional step to address any lingering concerns. The FBI lunched a supplemental background investigation. There are two words to note about this investigation: ``supplemental'' and ``independent.'' It is supplemental because Judge Kavanaugh has had six other previous background investigations. This was the seventh. It is independent, because now opponents are saying: Well, the investigation was merely checking a box. It wasn't thorough or comprehensive enough.

But that simply doesn't jibe with the facts. The FBI was told to investigate current credible allegations, and they had a free rein to contact anyone they wanted, and they contacted many of the people that our Democratic colleagues, Dr. Ford, and Ms. Ramirez themselves said were eyewitnesses or persons with relevant knowledge. I am talking about folks like Mark Judge and others.

So opponents are trying to have it both ways: They demand an investigation but then badmouth it when it doesn't reveal what they hoped it would. Politics should not have and didn't dictate the terms of this supplemental background investigation. The FBI knows how to do its work, and now opponents of this nomination should accept its findings.

But this has never been a search for the truth by Senators who had already announced their opposition to this nomination--some of them, even before Judge Kavanaugh was named. Rather, it has become a matter of delay, defeat, and destroy.

I do believe the Senator from Arizona and others who joined in his request did us a great favor by insisting on the FBI supplemental background investigation. The American people can feel better that leads have been followed and exhausted for those still interested in a search for the facts.

The American people now know that we took it upon ourselves to take one last step to dispel any doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the highest Court in the land, and now that step is complete. So to Senators Flake, Collins, and others who requested that supplemental background investigation, I say thank you.

Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have been badly treated throughout this process. Dr. Ford has been treated less as a real person than as a poker chip in a card game. Her wishes for confidentiality were ignored, her letter was leaked, and her story was weaponized in a political ambush.

This whole sad charade has likewise been unfair to Judge Kavanaugh. These allegations could and should have been investigated by the committee under normal procedures and timelines designed to protect both the accuser and the accused. Instead, we got mob rule.

Some blame Judge Kavanaugh for his righteous indignation and impassioned defense at the second hearing, but as somebody who served for 13 years on the bench myself, I know the difference between deciding a case as a judge for which Judge Kavanaugh's temperament has been universally praised and defending oneself against character assassination and personal destruction. Judge Kavanaugh understands the difference, too, and I have no doubt whatsoever about his judicial temperament.

Imagine what this has been like for Judge Kavanaugh's parents or his wife or his children or the friends and colleagues who know the real Brett Kavanaugh--shocking or embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it. I am disappointed more than I can say at those who have unleashed these unjustified attacks on the judge and his family and disappointed in their lack of any empathy or remorse for what they have put them through--no empathy, no remorse, none.

For some of them, it seems the end justifies the means. Chew good people up, spit them out. No problem. All in a day's work.

After the dust settles on this dark period, we need to think about the damage all of this has done to the Senate as an institution and to the judicial confirmation process that we most certainly will embark upon again in the near future.

It is my hope--it is my prayer--that the politics of personal destruction, simply because you don't agree with the nominee's judicial philosophy or the President who nominated him or her, will stop. The low road is not available to us anymore because there is no lower road than the one we have been on.

It is my hope that some of the tactics we have seen--intimidation, bullying, violating the rules, taunting Members, trying to coerce them through bribes, carpet bombing them with TV ads, sending them coat hangers in the mail, screaming at them in the hallway--these cannot become the new normal. So we cannot reward those tactics. I guarantee that if these tactics had succeeded in blocking Judge Kavanaugh, they would become the new normal, and that ought to chasten all of us. I hope we have learned a painful lesson these last few weeks and will strive to do better. I pledge my good faith and best efforts to do so and to try to help.

We should recall the not-so-distant past when Ruth Ginsburg, the former counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3; when Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0; and John Paul Stevens was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0 as well. In a rational, logical world, Judge Kavanaugh should have similarly lopsided numbers; that is, if people were willing to get past their tribalism and look at our nominee's record, look at over the 300 opinions he has authored, the decisions he has authored that the Supreme Court has unanimously embraced. If they would look at his scholarship, talk to his former colleagues and law clerks, if opponents were willing to do that honestly and thoroughly, they would have found a brilliant individual who cuts no corners in his legal analysis, who lets the chips fall where they may, and respects the very important but limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional system.

In my view, a vote against Judge Kavanaugh is an endorsement of the way the opponents have mishandled and abused the confirmation process, as well as the shameful intimidation tactics they employed.

A ``no'' vote neglects all the man is and all he has accomplished based on unproven accusations about adolescent conduct. It justifies the manipulation and mistreatment of people like Dr. Ford for political gain. It would establish a dangerous precedent and legitimize mob rule, including the presumption of guilt in violation of everything in our Constitution--

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. President, it would establish a dangerous precedent.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. President, it would establish a dangerous precedent and legitimize mob rule, including the presumption of guilt, in violation of everything our Constitution and fundamental notions of fairness that we stand for.

Some say we are a nation divided, but I am not so pessimistic as some. I actually hope we can all learn, we must learn, I believe, from this cruel, reckless, and indecent episode, but a ``no'' vote will not unite us; it will help reward despicable tactics and set a new ugly precedent. It will only encourage the spurning of tradition and agreed- upon rules, norms, and process. We should not ignore, we cannot acquiesce in or condone what has happened here. We should send a message loud and clear that the U.S. Senate will not be intimidated.

I will cast my vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Madam President, it seems like light years ago, but it was July 9 when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I want to recap to refresh everybody's memory of what has happened since July 9 and explain briefly why I will be voting for Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Most importantly, I want to make one point emphatically clear. The Senate should not be intimidated under the circus-like atmosphere that has unfortunately surrounded this entire confirmation process. We should not be intimidated, and we should not be complicit in the orchestrated attempt to assassinate one man's character and destroy his career and to further delay this confirmation vote.

When Judge Kavanaugh was nominated, it quickly became clear that we were dealing with somebody who was well qualified and well respected. He served for 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He was well known for his expertise and his talent and his experience. Former colleagues and judges said that. Lawyers who argued before him at the DC Circuit Court said that. His former law clerks said that. Legal scholars, including those who did not share his views on the law, said that as well.

What happened? I think opponents of this nomination knew they couldn't beat his nomination the old-fashioned way--on the merits--so they decided to throw in the kitchen sink. First came the trash talking. There are claims that supporters of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would somehow be complicit with evil. That was a U.S. Senator who said that. Another said his confirmation could spell the destruction of the Constitution itself.

These are apocalyptic words and rhetoric. Most Americans can spot wild untruths and petty shaming when they see it. So that didn't work very well. Opponents had to move on to round 2.

They then argued that Judge Kavanaugh could not be fair and impartial on the bench because of his views on executive power or because of his experience in working on the terrorist detention policy following the attacks that devastated this country on September 11, 2001, when he worked at the White House. Thankfully, the fact checkers did their due diligence and spotted errors with each of these arguments. So opponents of the nomination moved on.

Next came the great paper chase--the insistence that more and more documents needed to be produced, including those that had traditionally been held back because of executive privilege, because these were not documents that Brett Kavanaugh owned. These were documents held by either the National Archives or the George W. Bush Library. Yet it is important to note that more documents about Judge Kavanaugh were produced for him than for all of the other past Supreme Court Justices combined--more paper on Judge Kavanaugh than all of the other Supreme Court Justices combined. Once again, that argument eventually ran out of gas.

Fourth, came the normally scheduled confirmation hearings, which Judge Kavanaugh sailed through with flying colors. Opponents couldn't lay a finger on him, but that is when things began to take a darker turn. I am talking about the accusations that our Democratic colleagues sat on for a month before seeing them leaked into the press, contrary to Dr. Ford's wishes and against her consent. These allegations, of course, regarded alleged high school misconduct on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, but the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee didn't share that with the FBI for 6 weeks or more and didn't share it with bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, who were responsible for supplementing the investigation of the FBI and the background investigation. The ranking member didn't share it with the committee itself during a closed-door session during which sensitive material would not be made public and where Dr. Ford's identity, consistent with her request, could have remained confidential, as well, while that allegation was investigated. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh himself was never told of the allegation until sometime after his initial hearing.

Now, that includes when our friend and colleague, the senior Senator from California, met one-on-one with Brett Kavanaugh. Don't you think, if somebody had a question about an allegation being made against the nominee, that would be the perfect time to confront the nominee and say: I have this allegation. What do you have to say about it? But she said nothing.

By that point, we know she had already spoken to Dr. Ford. We know she had already recommended partisan lawyers to represent her. We knew there had been arrangements by her lawyers to conduct a polygraph examination. This is all during the time when the senior Senator from California had assured Dr. Ford that her name would be kept out of the press and out of the public limelight.

Once she was sent to these partisan lawyers, they were preparing for battle. They got a polygraph examination, plans were being made and hatched, but the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who sat on these allegations for 6 weeks, said nothing, including hiding the allegations from the very man whose name in the next few days would be tarnished when the full fury of our Democratic colleagues' wrath was unleashed.

These accusations are very serious. They are crimes. Judge Kavanaugh has been accused of multiple crimes.

I have said earlier that I wanted Dr. Ford to be treated the same way my own daughters or my wife or my mother would be treated in similar circumstances. That is the sort of respect

we owe any person making a serious allegation like this, but while we were doing everything we could to treat Dr. Ford with the dignity and respect she deserves, our Democratic colleagues did her a huge disservice, not only to her but any other woman across the country who believes they have been a victim of a sexual assault. I say that because of the way they handled Dr. Ford's accusations and hid them along the way.

We know Dr. Ford requested confidentiality, but our Democratic colleagues deprived her of that against her will. Her letter alleging misconduct on the part of Judge Kavanaugh was leaked to the press along the way, which is the way this sort of character assassination begins-- anonymous reports to the press.

We know Dr. Ford is struggling to come to grips with difficult moments in her past, but eventually she summoned the courage to share her story. What she didn't fully appreciate is, she was simultaneously being used and deployed as a political weapon, a last-minute timebomb that was designed to destroy one man's reputation and blow up the confirmation process once and for all.

I would say to our colleagues across the aisle who claim to be acting in Dr. Ford's best interest: It sure doesn't look like it to me. We did everything we could, under the awful circumstances presented to us by our Democratic colleagues, to show respect for Dr. Ford and to accommodate her wishes for safety and privacy. The Judiciary Committee wanted to do what was best for her when it offered a bipartisan team of investigators to go to California and give her an opportunity to tell her story to them out of the limelight, with the TV cameras off, respectfully and privately.

One of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this whole event, the very lawyers the ranking member sent her to, these partisan lawyers, apparently didn't even tell Dr. Ford this option was available to her. That is what Dr. Ford said at the hearing.

We also brought in an experienced sexual assault investigator and lawyer from Arizona to help us elicit the facts of her claim. Throughout the hearing, we listened and tried to learn from what Dr. Ford was telling us. We took Dr. Ford's statements seriously.

Then it was Judge Kavanaugh's turn. Some of our colleagues now feign concern about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial temperament because of the way he forcefully defended himself at the hearing where he had been accused of multiple crimes and accused of lying under oath.

We know what Judge Kavanaugh's temperament is like on the bench because he spent 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That is why the American Bar Association gave him their very highest rating, not only for his experience but for his temperament as well. They interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who had knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh's expertise and his temperament, and they all said it was deserving of the highest rating the American Bar Association could give.

I wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime we didn't commit and were forced into the public limelight to defend our good name and our honor and our reputation and to protect our family against the threats that were being made against them. I would be angry. I would do everything possible to push back against the false accusations, and that is what Judge Kavanaugh did. Along the way, he again offered his denial of any of the allegations of Dr. Ford under penalty of felony.

So the question is, How do we decide? Because we are going to be voting starting tomorrow on this nomination. Isn't it somebody's word against another's? Don't we either have to believe everything that one says or another? Do we know whom to trust, whose word to accept, when allegations are made about something that allegedly happened 35 years ago with gaps in the story, inconsistencies?

Well, I think the first thing we have to do is put these questions into the proper context, but here is the bottom line: This is not a case of he said, she said. It is a case of she said, they said. In other words, the allegations made by Dr. Ford are not confirmed or corroborated by any of the other people she said were present that day. One of those people she said was present was Leland Keyser, a female friend, one of her closest friends, who said not only does she not remember being involved in anything like this, she said she never even met Brett Kavanaugh.

This is not about believing women or believing men. That is a false choice. It is not about having to choose between a man and a woman when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. It is not about being for the #MeToo movement or against it because who, after all, could be against it--women coming forward and telling their story when they believe they have been assaulted.

No, what this is about is looking at the specific relevant evidence in this case in the proper framework. That evidence goes well beyond the impassioned and unequivocal denial by Judge Kavanaugh.

In this case, as I said, there were three eyewitnesses Dr. Ford said could confirm her story, and all of them directly refuted her story.

What is more, nothing like this ever came up in the context of six previous FBI background investigations conducted by the FBI during Judge Kavanaugh's long and very public career.

We have been told the FBI, during the course of these now seven background investigations, including the supplemental background investigation, has talked to 150 witnesses about Judge Kavanaugh. Don't you think somebody, somewhere, sometime would corroborate what Dr. Ford said if there were such a person?

We know these claims conflict with the accounts of many women who said they have known this nominee to behave honorably not only in high school and college toward them but the countless other women who have known and interacted with Judge Kavanaugh since. It just seems simply out of character for the Brett Kavanaugh we have come to know as a result of these hearings and these investigations.

Finally, the timing of these allegations seem awfully calculated and unusual, even politically motivated, and compound that with the fact that our Democratic colleagues chose not to act on the opportunity to investigate them either through the Judiciary Committee staff or the FBI when it was much more appropriate to do so.

Well, those are the facts I believe we should consider, and that is the evidence that suggested Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth.

The counterarguments offered by our Democratic colleagues are not compelling, and I think deep down they realize it. That is why they keep changing their position, moving the goalpost, as you have heard. That is why they have finally resorted to talking about alleged ice- throwing incidents in college. Man, that is disqualifying, they say, apparently, or let's look at his high school yearbook. I would stipulate that teenage boys--well, I was one once. We are not that smart when we are teenage boys, and the dumb things that people say and do, I think, as the judge said, are cringeworthy sometimes.

Then we have seen conspiracy theories spun up involving his calendar from 1982. Now, I admit it is a little odd, I think, for anybody to have kept a daily calendar and still have it at age 53, but Judge Kavanaugh said that is what his dad did, and it was a combination calendar and diary. So it tells us some of what he was doing at the time we are concerned with.

I would suggest this whole enterprise has gotten so far afield from a search for the truth and become just a relentless, unhinged attempt to defeat the nomination, and in the process, chew up and spit out the reputation of a good man.

We know this play has been telegraphed. Our friends across the aisle made known their opposition would be equal parts merciless and relentless months ago when the minority leader said he was going to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything he has--everything.

Well, apparently ``everything'' includes last-minute, uncorroborated accusations made almost 40 years ago. ``Everything'' involves refusing to participate in the normal committee process, walking out of hearings, breaking the rules. It involves making loud, baiting statements designed to incite people. It includes seeing some of our colleagues get hangers sent to their offices, chasing Senators and their

spouses from restaurants or through airports, not to mention delays and obstructions at every step along the way.

Here is what I really think needs to be understood: Our colleagues across the aisle claim to be looking out for the victim. They claim to be on the side of empathy, but there is nothing empathetic about the cruelty they have shown Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and their children. There is nothing empathetic about presuming that somebody is guilty without evidence, and there is nothing consistent about our colleagues who forget many of their standard refrains about our criminal justice system convicting too many people when the evidence is thin.

Some commentators have called this our Atticus Finch moment, recalling the famous novel ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' by Harper Lee. We all remember that Atticus Finch was a lawyer who did not believe that a mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. He represented an unpopular person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because of his race and his race alone. We could learn from Atticus Finch now, during this time when there has been such a vicious and unrelenting attack on the integrity and good name of this nominee.

What I find the most distressing is that our colleagues who have engaged in this relentless and vicious attack express no remorse over violating Dr. Ford's wishes regarding confidentiality. They make no act of contrition about thrusting her into the spotlight and using her for partisan purposes or for recommending partisan lawyers to shepherd her along and withholding information from the Judiciary Committee and the FBI for weeks on end.

I have spent much of my career in elected office fighting to make sure that victims of sexual assault and domestic violence and human trafficking are never ignored, but at the same time, I will never apologize for 1 second for believing in the constitutional presumption of innocence and due process of law--one of the bedrock principles of our justice system, and that is because those principles are grounded in basic fairness and fair play. The spirit of that principle and the concept of due process applies to Judge Kavanaugh just as much as it does to any defendant taking a stand in any courtroom across this country. He has, in fact, been accused of a crime--multiple crimes.

I believe we will remember last week's hearings for years to come, and I am sure history will ultimately judge all of us, but in the meantime, we need to act. We have had more than enough time to evaluate this nominee. The Senate must do its job, and we will not be intimidated. This is about the principles we stand up for and defend-- yes, sometimes even when it is unpopular.

This vote that we will have beginning tomorrow is about upholding long-established constitutional principles and creating the right precedent, not establishing the wrong one. Can you imagine, if this orchestrated smear campaign and relentless effort to destroy this nominee is successful, what kind of precedent that would set in the future? Woe be to all of us and shame on all of us if we allow that to happen.

This vote is about validating years of public service and decades of honorable conduct. It is not about forgetting everything that a person has done, all that he is, and all that he has worked for at the drop of a hat based on unproven allegations. It is not about shifting with the turbulent political whims. It is about what is just, and not just what is popular in some circles.

The FBI has submitted its supplemental background investigation. Democrats and Republicans are in the process of being briefed on that. Having been briefed, I can tell you this: Nothing new. No witness can confirm any allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. As I said, Judge Kavanaugh has been investigated seven times now by the FBI through background investigations where they have talked to 150 witnesses.

It is time to vote. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination starting with the cloture motion we will vote on tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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 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 unfortunately don't have enough time right now to respond to everything the Democratic leader has said, but I do want to say this: The most accurate statement the minority leader made is, he was against Judge Kavanaugh from the start. No one should be confused about this being a search for the truth. This is about search and destroy.

Now, I think the Judiciary Committee conducted itself appropriately in giving Dr. Ford a chance to tell her story. I have said all along I want Dr. Ford to be treated just the same way my daughters or my wife or my mother would be treated under similar circumstances, and I think we met that standard, but we know the goalpost continues to be moved by our colleagues. This idea that you can assassinate a man's character, resulting in threats against his family, ruin his reputation and his future, and expect him to be a human punching bag and not respond forcefully--it is incredible to me.

This should be about a fair process, but a fair process means the people who ultimately decide should have an open mind at the beginning. You wouldn't want to walk into a courtroom and talk to a jury or a judge where the judge and jury had already made up their mind; you would want them to listen to the evidence. That is what a fundamentally fair process means.

It also means, if somebody is going to make an accusation against an individual for a crime, which is what has been alleged against Judge Kavanaugh, they would have to come forward with more than just an allegation; they would have to come forward with witnesses, proof, evidence because under our Constitution, people are presumed to be innocent of crimes unless proven guilty. They are accorded due process of law, a fair hearing, a fair process.

Unfortunately, as a result of the mishandling of Dr. Ford's confidential letter to the ranking member, contrary to her wishes and without her consent, leaked to the press, she has been thrust into this three-ring circus. She was not told by her lawyers that the Judiciary Committee had offered to send a bipartisan team of professional staff out to her home in California to interview her confidentially. Why would her lawyers not tell her that? Because they wanted this three- ring circus. Despite Dr. Ford's wishes not to be thrust into the spotlight, they evidently thrust her into that spotlight, raising the question in my mind: For whom are they working? Are these lawyers actually working for Dr. Ford or do they have another agenda and another client in mind?

Well, the idea that now this has all come down to what somebody wrote in their high school yearbook is beyond parody. I mean, you can't make stuff like this up. Oh, we know the judge is belligerent because he allegedly threw ice on somebody in a bar in college. Of course, the reporter who wrote that had previously sent out a tweet demonstrating his bias against Judge Kavanaugh, but now it is accepted as fact--and, man, we are going to defeat this man because he threw ice on somebody when he was in college.

Or we are going to go through his high school yearbook. I wonder what the high school yearbook of every Senator in this Chamber says. I hope that is not the standard.

The Senate as an institution is one that operates based on precedent. If this is the precedent for future nominees, woe be to us because we will not be able to recruit the best and brightest people to serve in the judiciary or be subjected to this inquisition of a confirmation process.

As I said, there is more I want to say responding to the Democratic leader's comments, which I couldn't disagree with more. He had already made up his mind, so this is now about trying to build a case against the nominee. The problem is, there isn't any evidence, so in its place, what he wants to do is presume guilt: Because somebody said something in their high school yearbook, they ought to be disqualified; because they allegedly threw ice on somebody when they were in college, that is disqualifying. That is making this whole process a laughingstock. This is the opposite of the sort of fair and dignified process we should be following.

Now, at the request of many Senators, the FBI is going to be reporting back to the Senate on their supplemental background investigation. Will that be enough to satisfy those who had said, ``All we need is one more week in order to allow the FBI to question more witnesses''? We see now that they have moved on. Regardless of what happens with this supplemental background investigation, they will not be satisfied because they had their minds made up already, even before Dr. Ford's letter became public.

This is an embarrassing, disgraceful way for the Senate to conduct itself. We do not honor ourselves or this institution by handling this nominee, this nomination, and these witnesses--including Dr. Ford--like this.

I don't know what it is going to take for us to change. But one thing that can't happen is we can't let these despicable tactics and this strategy win because if they are able to destroy the reputation of a sitting judge based on such flimsy stuff, that means this same precedent will be applied to future nominees. Woe be to us and what a terrible disservice, not only to the good men and women who want to serve in government but also to the American people.

The thing I hate most about Washington, DC, and its insular culture is that some people don't just want to win the argument; some people don't want to just win the election or win the vote; they want to destroy their opposition--destroy them. That is why people are saying that, even if the judge is confirmed, maybe over in the House they will start impeachment proceedings. One of the Members of the Judiciary Committee said: If the judge is confirmed, it will not stop there; I am not going to stop. What does that mean?

We need to vote. We need to get the FBI report and we need to vote because the longer this circus continues, the more embarrassing it becomes to the Senate and to the Senators who work here.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).