Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North

Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, more than a year ago, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and I sent a letter to Purdue University President Mitch Daniels in which we expressed our concerns about Purdue's proposed acquisition of the predatory, for-profit Kaplan University.

Kaplan was notorious in the for-profit college industry for their mistreatment of students.

They had been the subject of numerous State and Federal investigations and lawsuits for misleading marketing claims, inflated job placement numbers, and unfair recruiting.

As Senator Brown and I cautioned at the time, Kaplan's troubled history posed major risks for Purdue's current students and the institution's reputation as a top public university.

We suggested that at the very least Purdue should commit to clear protections and reforms for students if it intended to press on with the transaction.

Among our suggestions was an end to the use of predispute mandatory arbitration in student enrollment.

Predispute mandatory arbitration clauses prevent students from bringing suit against a school in a court of law when the school harms a student, like misleading them about job placement rates or luring them with other false information.

Instead, students are forced into a dispute resolution process, known as arbitration, which lacks the procedures and precedents of the court system and is often stacked against students.

The proceedings themselves, including the outcome, are secret which hides misconduct from regulators and accreditors.

The clauses are often buried in the fine print of stacks of enrollment documents that students must sign in order to enroll.

The practice, along with class action bans which prevent students from bringing suit as a group, are a hallmark of the for-profit college industry; schools like Corinthian, ITT Tech, and Kaplan notoriously used the practice to shield themselves from being held accountable while exploiting students and taxpayers.

But predispute mandatory arbitration and class action bans are almost unheard of at public and legitimate not-for-profit institutions of higher education.

In fact, in an August 30 public comment letter to the Department of Education, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, APLU, of which Purdue is a member, and other education organizations wrote, ``We fail to see how allowing [pre-dispute mandatory arbitration and class action bans] is beneficial to the public.''

Since the Purdue-Kaplan deal was finalized, creating Purdue Global University, it turns out that the new school continues to use predispute mandatory arbitration and class action bans.

In response to it coming to light, a Purdue spokesman said that the practice was ``inherited from Kaplan,'' in an apparent attempt to deflect responsibility.

The spokesman went on to assert that the Purdue board ``has complete control over Purdue Global, and has the final say as to which policies it retains, and which it alters . . . and to enact whatever policies it deems to be in the interest of students . . .''

Well, Purdue can't have it both ways.

Either the continued use of predispute mandatory arbitration and class actions bans are a remnant of Kaplan that the board disvows--in which case, the board should use its authority to immediately end the practice--or the board must accept responsibility for the practice continuing under its control and acknowledge predispute mandatory arbitration as an affirmed Purdue policy that it ``deems to be in the best interest of students.''

As Senator Brown and I told the Purdue Board in a new letter recently, they have to choose.

We will be waiting.

I want to be clear: Anything short of meeting the high bar set by Purdue's fellow public universities and APLU institutions--not using predispute mandatory arbitration and class action bans in student enrollment--will be a betrayal of students and Indiana taxpayers.

I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I will oppose the pending nomination of Jeffrey Clark to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. This is the division that leads the Department of Justice's enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Mr. Clark is not the right person for that job.

In 2014, he said the science of climate change is ``contestable.'' He represented British Petroleum in litigation over the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. He has represented the Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups in challenging EPA greenhouse gas regulations.

He is a favorite of the Federalist Society, having chaired that group's environmental law and practice group. But his nomination is strongly opposed by groups that care about protecting the environment.

The Sierra Club called him an ``outspoken opponent of environmental and public health protection.'' The Natural Resources Defense Council described him as an ``enemy of the environment.'' He is exactly the wrong person to be in this job of enforcing regulations to protect our environment.

Just during these last few days, the United Nations put out an alert to all of the members around the world. We are going to pay dearly for this current administration's decision to remove ourselves from the Paris Agreement, where literally every country on Earth agreed to try to do something to clean up the mess of our environment and leave our children a better place to live. We decided, under President Trump, to be the only Nation to step away from it. Why? What in the world were we thinking? Can you believe that things that are happening that are easily documented can be ignored? Do you see the flooding that is going on now in Florida on a regular basis? That is just 1 of 1,000 different examples.

If we don't accept responsibility in our generation to make this a better world, shame on us. We want to leave our kids a better world, but for goodness' sake, do we have the political courage to do it? Will we be able to say to the President: You are just wrong.

We have to work together with nations around the world. The United States should be a leader, not an apologist. The President said he wants to make America first. How about America first when it comes to cleaning up the environment? There is nothing wrong with that leadership. It is something we should be proud of.

This man, Jeffrey Clark, who is aspiring to be the Assistant Attorney General, just doesn't buy into what I just said, and I can't support him as a result.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we receive a lot of letters in our offices, and primarily we pay attention to those that come from our own home States. People expect me as their Senator to read the letter and to at least consider their point of view. Some of these letters are kind of routine, almost form letters. Some emails come in at a volume we can hardly keep up with. In Illinois, I receive 10,000 emails a week--a week. That is a lot.

There was a time when I was a college kid working here on Capitol Hill, and the Senator from Illinois signed every letter that went out of the office--sat at the desk and signed the letters. It is inconceivable now that we can respond to all the letters each day. We try to keep up with them, we try to be timely, and we pick those letters out that are personal and important enough that the staff thinks I should read them personally, and I make a point of doing it.

Sometimes the stories they tell give me an insight into the issues we debate on the floor of the Senate.

Most of the time the American people look at us puzzled, asking: What are they talking about, and why does this mean anything to my family and my future?

Let me give you an example of a couple of letters I received that relate to a vote we are going to take this week. The first letter was from Richard and Mary Laidman, from Naperville, IL, which is west of the city of Chicago, in DuPage County.

Richard and Mary wrote: ``Our 13-year-old son Sam was diagnosed with leukemia one day after the `no pre-existing conditions exclusions for kids' protection went into effect.''

They went on to say to me: ``Obviously, we are feeling dependent on all the clauses of the [ACA] right now--including [the] no pre-existing conditions exclusions.''

The bottom line, the Laidmans say, is ``junk insurance plans,'' the ones that are so cheap they don't cover anything important. ``Junk insurance plans'' wouldn't cover their son. It would leave him and the family to fend for themselves in the individual market.

Do you know what it is like to go into the individual market as a mother and father and try to find health insurance for a 13-year-old son who has been diagnosed with leukemia? Maybe you can't find any, but if you could, it would be so expensive that you might not be able to afford it. The Affordable Care Act changed that, and it said: If you are going to offer health insurance plans in this country, you cannot discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions. You have to cover everybody--bring them all in.

We do that in Medicare. We say when you reach Medicare eligibility: All aboard. Everybody is invited in.

But for the longest time, private health insurance companies wanted to pick and choose. They wanted healthy people who can pay premiums. They would rather not pay these bills so they excluded a lot of people with preexisting conditions.

Sam, age 13 and diagnosed with leukemia, would be one of the victims of that old-time approach. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society recently stated:

People diagnosed with cancer on a short term plan soon

discover these plans fail to cover even lifesaving cancer

treatments. If patients on short term plans can get access to

cancer therapies at all, they will often be left with

hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Tammy Baldwin is a Senator from the State of Wisconsin. She is going to offer to the Senate tomorrow a chance to vote against President Trump's plan that would eliminate protection for preexisting conditions. We will get a chance to be on record here. I think it is long overdue.

None of us knows what tomorrow will bring. We don't know if tomorrow will bring an accident or a diagnosis, and, all of a sudden, your happy, healthy family has a challenge you never dreamed of. It has happened to my family. I will bet it has happened to most of yours.

The question is, Are we going to demand of health insurance companies that they cover those with preexisting conditions or are we just going to tell those families: Fend for yourself. See what happens. See how much it costs.

Another letter is from Watseka, IL, from the McTaggart family. Watseka is south of Chicago, in Iroquois County, a rural county, with big towns like Watseka and Milford. It is a great little place.

Here is a letter from Christine McTaggart. She was originally diagnosed with stage III inflammatory breast cancer. Given this type of aggressive cancer, her prognosis was not

good. She went through 16 cycles of chemo, a bilateral mastectomy, 33 radiation treatments, failed reconstruction and chronic tissue issues, and a thyroid cancer diagnosis. After all that, she learned the breast cancer was back. This time she was stage IV. In her letter to me, Christine said:

When the ACA became law, I had no idea that my life would

come to depend on policies such as pre-existing conditions

not excluding you from coverage.

She ends with this quote:

I thank you for your tireless advocacy on this issue. . . .

My life, literally, depends on it.

We pass a lot of resolutions here for ``National Pickle Week'' and saluting the flag. All of that is part of my job. Occasionally, an issue comes to the floor of the Senate that is really going to affect life-and-death issues for Americans all across our Nation. This is one of them. This is the No. 1 issue in this election.

You might think our debate last week about a Supreme Court Justice was important, but you ask families back in Illinois: What do you really care about?

They say: Senator, that was an important debate. I care about my family. I care about my health insurance. I want to make sure of two things. I want to make sure I can afford it, and I want to make sure that when I buy it, it is worth owning and it is there when I need it.

The Republican view on this is this: Buyer beware. Go out in the marketplace. Shop around. Buy yourself something cheap, like a junk insurance plan. It may not be there when you need it, but boy, the premiums will be low.

That is not much confidence in insurance, if that is the case, and that is why, when Tammy Baldwin, Senator of Wisconsin, offers us a chance to vote--I think, as soon as tomorrow--on this Trump rule, I hope we will get at least two Republicans who cross the aisle and join us. If they are listening at home, they will, because if they are listening at home, they know that families really care about this issue of preexisting conditions. It is so important for us.

You look at the groups that have come out in opposition to President Trump's junk insurance plans. They are the most important groups that you could think of. The American Cancer Society stated that President Trump's junk plan rule would ``leave older and sicker Americans in the individual market with few, if any, affordable health coverage choices'' and that ``patients living with serious conditions will be left paying more for the coverage they need, if they can afford coverage at all.

In recent months, I have heard a lot of congressional Republicans proclaim to care about people with preexisting conditions, especially those up for reelection. These are the same ones who have eagerly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the night.

I have been in the Senate for a few years. That was one vote I will never forget. John McCain walked through those doors in the middle of the night, stood at that table, and with his arms still restricted because of the torture he went through as a veteran in the Vietnam war, he could barely lift his right arm with his thumb pointed down, saying no. That ``no'' vote, together with two other Republicans, saved health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

But the Trump administration isn't finished. They found new ways to reduce coverage for American families and to raise costs. That is what the Trump plan is all about, and that is what we get a chance to vote on.

The Senate is broken out in 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. If all of the Democrats vote for Tammy Baldwin, and I think they will, we still need two Republicans. Let's see if they will come over and vote not only against the Trump plan but vote for the millions of families like those who I have read about today on the floor who are counting on quality health insurance to be there when they need it, who believe that no one should discriminate against someone because of a preexisting health condition. That, to me, seems fundamentally fair.

I have raised a child with a serious problem. We face this time and again. Nobody should have to face it. A vote for Tammy Baldwin's resolution of disapproval on the Trump plan tomorrow will put America on the right course for families that need health insurance they can count on.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I would like to respond to my colleague from Texas with regard to at least one or two aspects of what he said.

He has characterized the opposition to Judge Kavanaugh as ``mob rule.'' I don't think that is a fair characterization. The opposition to Judge Kavanaugh is on many different levels. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have looked at this nomination seriously, and they have come to opposite positions. I don't believe we are influenced, frightened, or in any way moved by mob rule. I just don't get it.

Have I seen conduct that I think is untoward and really should not be condoned by people who feel strongly about this issue? Of course. Do I believe that people should have their freedom of speech limited or stifled? No, I don't. Even if it is something I don't want to hear, people have a right to speak. Of course, I will never condone violence or any physical activities against anyone, including Members of Congress. Some people have either come close to that line or have stepped over it, but I don't condone that in any way, shape or form.

If we are truly committed to the Constitution that we have sworn to uphold and defend, the First Amendment creates opportunities for American citizens that others around the world long for and never see once in their lives. Part of that is freedom of speech. Part of that is the right to petition your government. So if some have stepped over the line, I will not defend them when it comes to violent conduct, but in expressing their points of view with a sign or a march or even a chant, I have to say that it is part of our constitutional birthright, thank goodness, in the United States of America.

Last week, I saw Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for the first time. I had heard her name for a week or more. I had seen one photo of her in sunglasses, but I had never seen her or heard her speak. She came forward at great risk to herself and to her family after having been dislocated, with her kids, from two different homes. She came here to face the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Nation and to speak under oath. She had absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward. She did it, as she said, out of a sense of civic duty. She wanted to, in her own words, be helpful so that the Senate and leaders of this Nation would know what had happened to her before there would be any vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Her testimony was credible and powerful. She answered every question and tried to be helpful whenever she could.

I was struck by the statement from the Senator from Texas. He said that in some way, we want to make sure that our wives and daughters are treated fairly if they come forward with this kind of information. I couldn't agree with him more, but we all know what happened after her testimony. Even President Trump, before a Mississippi rally, ridiculed and belittled Dr. Ford. After once calling her a credible witness, she became the butt of his joke at a rally in Mississippi. That is unfortunate.

When Dr. Ford came before us, she had nothing to hide. The Republicans on the committee were so concerned about her testimony and their relationship in the questioning of her that they were unwilling to risk direct questioning as she sat in front of them. They pointedly enlisted a woman prosecutor to do their job. The prosecutor's examination was meandering and without any clear focus other than as an attempt to try to discredit Dr. Ford. That Republican prosecutor failed as Dr. Ford calmly replied to all of her questions.

It was clear, however, that despite this testimony, even despite this hearing, many Republicans had made up their minds, as the majority leader had characterized it, to plow right through regardless of Dr. Ford's testimony. We hear so many tributes to Dr. Ford from the Republican side out of one side of their mouth, and then they turn around and say that it is a smear. A smear is a lie.

I don't believe she was lying. They can't praise her on one hand and call her testimony a smear on the other. The majority leader did that for 3 successive days on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

They even went so far as to schedule a committee vote before that hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh had started.

Then, last Friday, two of our colleagues, Republican Senator Jeff Flake and Democratic Senator Chris Coons, came together and joined Dr. Ford's call for a nonpartisan and thorough FBI investigation into the pending allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. That should have happened long before. Make no mistake. There would not have been a hearing with Dr. Ford were it not for Senator Flake, a Republican Senator, demanding it, and there would not have been an FBI investigation if he hadn't demanded it as well. I thank him for his leadership in doing that. Those were two reasonable requests, and I am glad that he was in a position to make it happen when Democrats could not. It was the right request.

Of course it would have been helpful for Senators exercising the advice and consent role if neutral investigators at the FBI were allowed to question all of the relevant witnesses, follow the facts wherever they may have led, and get to the bottom of the allegations brought by Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick. Unfortunately, the White House and Senate Republicans were determined not to let such an FBI investigation go forward.

A Whitehouse spokesman, Raj Shah, has now publicly acknowledged that Senate Republicans were allowed to severely constrain the scope of the FBI investigation. He said it. He said it publicly. He said it before the cameras.

Senate Republicans allowed only a handful of witnesses to be interviewed by the FBI. Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said: ``There was an initial list of four''--four--``provided to us by the Senate.'' There were reportedly almost 40 corroborating or character witnesses who have been trying to share information with the FBI. The FBI has refused to contact them, even though their names had been provided.

Dr. Ford's and Deborah Ramirez's attorneys both sent letters yesterday with lists of corroborating witnesses who were not interviewed by the FBI. There is no good explanation as to why these witnesses weren't interviewed by the FBI, nor can I explain why Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh themselves weren't interviewed. Those are basic steps for a legitimate and credible investigation.

Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that the FBI's supplemental investigation provides no corroboration of Dr. Ford's or Ms. Ramirez's complaints, but, of course, you will not find corroboration if the investigation systematically excludes corroborating witnesses.

Unfortunately, the effort by the White House and Senate Republicans to tie the FBI's hands in the Kavanaugh investigation is part of a pattern of concealment when it comes to the background of Brett Kavanaugh.

The Senator from Texas says: I hope this isn't a new standard for hearings on Supreme Court nominations. I hope it isn't either. There are some things we have done in this particular nomination hearing that were unheard of.

Millions of pages of Judge Kavanaugh's public service record have been blocked from release to the public and even to the Senate. There was a time when Senator Jeff Sessions--now Attorney General--demanded documentation on Democratic nominees, and at that time the Democratic chairman agreed with him. We provided all of the information requested, as we should have. In this case, with Republicans controlling the committee, we were limited.

We have been denied access to an entire 35-month period in Judge Kavanaugh's White House career when he worked as one of the President's closest advisers as the White House Staff Secretary. During that time, he worked on controversial issues, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, torture, and Executive power.

It is likely that there are documents in Kavanaugh's Staff Secretary record that would impact how Senators would vote on his nomination, and that is why they were hidden.

There was also an unprecedented partisan effort to screen and limit the documents that the committee itself could see. I listened as the Senator from Texas said: Dr. Ford had a partisan lawyer. Well, guess who screened the documents that were going to go from the official archives to our Judiciary Committee to review for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. The man's name is Bill Burck. He is Kavanaugh's former deputy. By every measure, Bill Burck is a partisan lawyer. I guess it is no surprise. What I was surprised was to find that an individual lawyer would have such power over a constitutional provision of advice and consent.

Overall, when all is said and done, after the denials from the White House of certain records, after the claims of Executive privilege, after Bill Burck went through and screened what he considered to be appropriate and inappropriate documents for the American people to see, less than 10 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's White House record has been disclosed.

Those documents are going to come out some day, and those who are quickly voting for him now without reading them run the risk that they are making a mistake, which they are going to have to explain at a later time.

Just yesterday we learned from a FOIA lawsuit that the National Archives has hundreds of documents concerning Brett Kavanaugh's work in the White House on warrantless surveillance programs. We will not see those documents before tomorrow's vote. The White House apparently fears their contents and prefers to plow through.

Why has so much of Judge Kavanaugh's record been concealed? Most likely because these documents contradict what he said. We have seen a pattern with Judge Kavanaugh from his Senate testimony in 2004, 2006, and again last month. When he is asked about controversial issues that he has been involved with in the past, he tries to deny or downplay them. He has done this repeatedly when testifying about matters he worked on at the White House, including the rules governing detention of combatants; warrantless surveillance; controversial judicial nominations, such as Pryor, Pickering, and Haynes; communicating with the press during the Starr investigation; and his work with Manny Miranda, a Republican Senate staffer who stole documents from Democratic Senators' computers, including my own, and shared them with Brett Kavanaugh when he was working at the White House.

On each issue, we have seen documents and reports showing that Judge Kavanaugh had far more involvement than his testimony let on. On issue after issue, Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony was either misleading or false.

This is a judge who claims that words matter. He says that he is a strict textualist who holds other people accountable for their words, but when it comes to his own words, he is happy to take liberties and refuses to take responsibility. We have been forewarned of what we can expect if he is given a lifetime appointment on the Court.

We saw this pattern again last week when he was asked about his high school yearbook and excessive drinking. They were legitimate questions that were relevant to the sexual assault allegations at hand. Many of Kavanaugh's answers to these questions simply weren't credible. His explanation of things he wrote in the yearbook didn't pass the laugh test. Multiple people who knew him and socialized with him quickly and publicly rebutted his denial that he ever drank, in their words, ``to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did.''

I was particularly struck when Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota explained that she understands alcohol abuse because her father was an alcoholic and then asked Judge Kavanaugh if he had ever blacked out. Instead of responding, Kavanaugh said: ``Have you?'' Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin has written: ``It was a moment of singular cruelty and disrespect.''

It has been hard to take Judge Kavanaugh's testimony at his word on matters both large and small. That matters a lot when we are talking about a nominee's judgment, temperament, and integrity.

Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record and his academic writings raise even more concerns. Not only did he check the box on President Trump's litmus test of opposition to the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade, his judicial opinions consistently find ways to favor big business and undermine protection for workers, consumers, women, and the environment.

He claims to be a textualist, but he has a habit of creatively defining words. In the Agriprocessors case, which I asked him about directly in the hearing, his dissent abandoned the text of the controlling statute. Instead, he borrowed a definition from another statute in order to argue against the right of slaughterhouse workers to vote to form a union. When I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether he ever worked in a job himself that was dirty and dangerous, as dangerous as a slaughterhouse, he told me he used to cut grass and worked one summer in construction.

Look at his dissents in the White Stallion and Mingo Logan cases, where the judge gave his own definitions to key terms in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts--so much for stare decisis.

Judge Kavanaugh claims he follows precedent, but as we have seen in case after case, he goes his own way.

Look at his interpretation in the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision. Judge Kavanaugh believes the Supreme Court created a history and tradition test for considering challenges to gun safety laws. This test would have courts ignore the public safety impact of gun laws. Judge Kavanaugh admitted that he is ``a lonely voice in reading Heller that way.''

His approach would put at risk many commonsense laws, such as keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Judge Kavanaugh is not a lonely voice on gun safety; he is an extreme and frightening voice on gun safety.

After he wrote a dissent laying out his interpretation of the Heller precedent, a majority panel of DC Circuit judges--all of them Republican appointees--said this of his interpretation: ``Unlike our dissenting colleague, we read Heller straightforwardly.''

Judge Kavanaugh's reading of Heller may be music to the ears of the gun lobby, but it is manipulating precedent, nothing else.

Judge Kavanaugh's claim that he follows precedent is also contradicted by his view of the Supreme Court decision Morrison v. Olson. Rather than admit the majority's decision in the case still holds, Judge Kavanaugh clings to Justice Scalia's dissent, which lays out the so-called ``unitary executive theory'' of Presidential power.

Judge Kavanaugh has been explicit that he would overturn Morrison. Let's

be clear. While Judge Kavanaugh may claim that he will scrupulously follow precedent, he has shown he is willing to overturn it when it suits him. I have cited just a few examples.

Also particularly troubling is this judge's view of Presidential power. Judge Kavanaugh wrote a striking passage in the Seven-Sky decision, dissenting from the majority's upholding of the Affordable Care Act. He wrote: ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.''

This is a truly breathtaking claim of Presidential power, a claim particularly problematic at this moment in history.

Then there is Judge Kavanaugh's evolving view on investigations of sitting Presidents. When he was working for Ken Starr and investigating President Clinton, he was pretty ferocious. But in 2008, he gave a speech and wrote a law review article arguing that sitting Presidents should be immunized from criminal investigations and civil suit. This was after Judge Kavanaugh spent a period of time working in the Bush White House.

He claims that he has an open mind on the constitutionality of criminal investigations of sitting Presidents, but consider what he wrote in that law review article in the Minnesota Law Review:

If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment

process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury

should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to

Congress.

These are not the words of a judge with an open mind.

It was a telling moment when Judge Kavanaugh at his hearing would not answer whether he believed a President should comply with a grand jury subpoena.

Here is the reality: We have to consider why this President chose this Supreme Court nominee at this moment in history when the Mueller investigation is closing in.

Just a few weeks ago, Judge Kavanaugh himself said: ``The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.'' But the testimony and demeanor of Judge Kavanaugh last Thursday belies any claim he makes of nonpartisanship.

I can understand emotion and indignation from Judge Kavanaugh when one considers the gravity of the charges against him and the pain he and his family must feel, but there was fire in his eyes when he read the words he assured us he had personally written.

Benjamin Wittes has been a colleague of Brett Kavanaugh. He has published his writings, and he even lent his name as a character reference for the judge. He called Judge Kavanaugh's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee ``a howl of rage.'' Wittes went on to describe Kavanaugh's partisanship as ``raw, undisguised, naked and conspiratorial.''

Charlie Sykes, a conservative commentator, said of Kavanaugh's statement before the committee last Thursday: ``Even if you support Brett Kavanaugh . . . that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament.''

Judge Kavanaugh abandoned any veneer of neutrality last week before our committee.

Out of one side of his mouth, he claimed that he bore ``no ill will'' toward Dr. Ford. Then he called her allegations ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit,'' citing ``apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He even threatened Democrats when he said: ``What goes around comes around.''

In my 20 years on the Judiciary Committee, I have never heard anything like that--or even close to that--from a judicial nominee. It is hard to imagine how a nominee who has displayed such raw partisanship could then claim to serve as a neutral umpire on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh, through his testimony, has called his own impartiality into serious doubt.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a man who is respected for his integrity and service to this Nation, said this week that the performance by Judge Kavanaugh shows he should not serve on the Supreme Court. I agree. At a time when our President plumbs the depths of bad behavior on a daily basis, we should not allow the highest Court in our land to now sink to that same standard in their ranks.

From a broader perspective, let's be clear what is at stake in this decision. We are at a moment in American history where our system of checks and balances is being profoundly tested. We have a President who has shown disrespect for the rule of law and the role of an independent judiciary. It is likely the Supreme Court will soon consider fundamental questions about Presidential authority and accountability. With so much at stake, we should not confirm a nominee to the Court unless we are sure of that nominee's credibility, integrity, independence, and judgment.

Serious questions have been raised about Brett Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford's testimony was serious and credible. When I asked her directly what degree of certainty do you have that Brett Kavanaugh was your attacker, Dr. Ford answered, without hesitation: ``100 percent.''

I believe her.

Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was simply not credible. From his contrived explanations of his embarrassing yearbook entries, to his ``I love beer'' declarations, he was a sharp contrast to Dr. Ford's measured accounting of a horrible day in her life she cannot forget.

I had hoped the FBI would be able to provide us with information to resolve unanswered questions, but they can't do their job if their hands are tied. When the Republicans in the committee and the White House decided to limit the number of witnesses, unfortunately, the investigation could not be completed to meet professional standards.

I will say this to my colleagues. We have to think about what it would mean if Judge Kavanaugh were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court with credible sexual assault allegations against him. Specifically, what it would mean to the millions of women across America who are survivors of sexual assault--women who have been scared to come forward with their stories for fear of being mocked, ridiculed, and shunned. What would it mean for them to see Brett Kavanaugh sitting on that bench in that Court across the street, day after day, for decades, casting what may be the deciding vote on cases that profoundly affect their rights. It would shake the confidence of millions of Americans in the integrity of our Supreme Court. We should not take that risk.

There are other qualified lawyers besides Brett Kavanaugh who could be nominated for this vacant seat--nominees whose legal views I may not agree with but who do not have serious questions about their fitness for office. If there are serious questions about a nominee's temperament, credibility, or judgment--as there clearly are for Judge Brett Kavanaugh--we owe a duty of caution. We should give the benefit of the doubt to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.

With so much at stake, we should not confirm a nominee to the Court unless we are sure the nominee's qualifications are beyond question. I do not have that confidence in Brett Kavanaugh. I will vote no on his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me say at the outset that I would like to set the record straight on the question of the FBI interview, which has been raised repeatedly by Members on the other side of the aisle.

It was our request from the start, when we heard the complaints of Dr. Ford and her allegations, that there be a thorough FBI investigation. On the Democratic side, we asked for that repeatedly from the Republican majority. It wasn't until Senator Flake and some of his Republican colleagues made a point of saying they wouldn't move to go forward without the FBI investigation that it finally was agreed to.

Let me also add that statements have been made publicly by the public spokesman at the White House about how the witnesses were chosen for this FBI investigation. According to Mr. Shah, who works in the White House, he told us that a list of witnesses was sent by Senate Republicans to the White House, and they were included in their request. That is not the investigation we were looking for. We were hoping the FBI would revert to its professional status and interview all of the witnesses who are relevant. Certainly, among those relevant witnesses would have been Dr. Ford herself who could have been questioned under penalty of criminal prosecution if she misled or lied to the FBI, who could have provided substantial corroborative information. She was never called on. Neither was Judge Kavanaugh by the FBI.

Dr. Ford provided eight different witnesses whom she thought should be called to back up her side of the story, not a single one of them was called by the FBI. Ms. Ramirez suggested 20 witnesses be called on by the FBI on her behalf, and not one of them was called.

This was not the FBI investigation which we sought, nor does it clear the charges against Kavanaugh that were raised by Dr. Ford. In fact, it was a scant interview that involved some 10 witnesses in a matter of just a few days with a limited roster of people who were going to be questioned.

Let me speak to the matter at hand in a larger context. I have been in public life for a few years, but I have never seen the public reaction to this particular nomination and the hearings leading up to it that I have seen in this case.

I went back to Illinois last week on Friday. Before I could get off the airplane at Midway Airport, people were talking to me--just passengers at random, about what had happened the day before with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testifying before our committee. The same thing happened with cab drivers, the doorman at the hotel holding an umbrella in the rain and talking to me about the testimony that was given to the Judiciary Committee. For the next 3 days, everywhere I turned, every person had a comment to make. America was tuned in and watching carefully because they knew how important this hearing was. It wasn't just the nomination for someone to serve on the Supreme Court. It was critically important to Americans to know who would be that person, what their views were when it came to the health of women, the protection of our health insurance, our privacy, our right to vote. It also was very clear that we held this hearing in the context of a national debate on sexual harassment and sexual violence. Is it any surprise that this explosive issue, which has touched corporate boardrooms, our churches, sports, Congress, has now been raised in our debate over a nomination to our highest Court?

I ask my colleagues: Is there a single one of us in the last 2 weeks who has not had an experience with someone coming forward, either in writing or in person, to tell you of their experience when it came to sexual harassment and sexual violence?

Just a few minutes ago, I read the latest letters we received in our office. Two women from my State of Illinois told me in their letters they were saying for the first time what actually happened to them many years ago and how much they identified with Dr. Ford and what she had gone through. That is a fact of life.

The fact that this touched a nerve with so many Americans, and particularly women who have gone through this experience, should put this whole debate in context. It should not be cheapened or lessened by political charges. We ought to understand the gravity of this debate in light of the cultural change we are now facing in America.

This afternoon, we have reached that day of reckoning. Those of us who count votes for a living know how this will end, but I want to make it clear there is something we need to remember. One of the closest votes in the history of the Supreme Court will occur this afternoon with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. One has to go back 137 years in American history to find a closer vote for a Supreme Court Justice. That portrays the seriousness with which this matter has been considered and undertaken by Members of the Senate and how divided we are on this nomination.

I want to ask my colleagues not just to reflect on this afternoon but to reflect on tomorrow. What about the future of this Supreme Court and this important critical institution in our Constitution?

Six years ago, in the days before the NFIB v. Sebelius decision deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act, a Pew Research poll showed that the public approval of the Supreme Court had reached an all-time low. Citizens United and Bush v. Gore had branded the Supreme Court as a political tool in the eyes of most Americans. Chief Justice Roberts stepped in and wrote a decision in that case which infuriated conservatives but brought momentary credibility to the Court.

Filling this critical Kennedy vacancy with Judge Kavanaugh will again raise the question about Supreme Court politics.

Chief Justice Roberts, are you watching?

What can we expect from this newest Member of the Court, Brett Kavanaugh? After his contentious nomination process, Clarence Thomas gave us 10 years of brooding silence on the Bench of the Supreme Court. What can we expect from this new Justice? Will he be the soup kitchen volunteer or the Federalist Society favorite?

Will he be the man who raged at the Clintons and promised revenge for his ordeal or the judge who impressed Senator Collins as more moderate than most of us on this side of the aisle ever found him?

Will he be a Justice forever grateful to President Trump who nominated him, or a Justice who honors the rule of law more than any political leader or political party?

And what about this Senate? What should the next Supreme Court vacancy look like? Will we continue to follow the Merrick Garland plow- it-through playbook of judicial appointments at any cost, freezing out a nominee to the Supreme Court for almost 1

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

Thomas More, in ``A Man for All Seasons,'' said famously:

And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round

on you, where would you hide . . . the laws all being flat?

And if you cut them down . . . do you really think you

could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

So will we establish and reestablish rules and procedures that show mutual respect for one another as Senators and respect for this body we are honored to serve? I sincerely hope that conversation begins and begins soon.

I want to say a word about the leaders on the Judiciary Committee. Chuck Grassley is my friend. He has been my friend for a long time. We do a lot of legislation together. We have a difference of political views. He is a loyal Republican; I am a loyal Democrat. We have adjoining States, and we find some things that we can work on in common. I want to say personally to Senator Grassley: Thank you for your leadership on this committee. I think there are moments when the White House and even your staff got the best of you. But I trust Chuck Grassley in terms of where this committee is going. You have it within your power to restore the traditions of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I hope that you will. I will join you in that effort.

I want to say a word about Dianne Feinstein too. She has been the subject of more attacks by my colleagues than I have ever heard any Member face in the Senate. It is just not fair. Dianne Feinstein is a woman of integrity. She is a person who is caring, and she has given a major part of her life in public service at so many different levels.

Some of the charges and innuendo that I have heard on the floor of the Senate are unbefitting this body, and she does not deserve them. I thank Senator Collins yesterday for specifically saying that in her remarks. I couldn't be more happy than to join her in those comments.

I want to say a word about protesting and mob rule. I will tell you that if you believe in freedom of speech and our right as citizens to petition our government, then you accept some tough consequences. There are things that are said and done in the name of free speech that you may not agree with. Violence is never acceptable; let me make that clear. But the decision that is about to be made in the United States is not being made by a mob. It is not mob rule. It is a decision made by men and women of the Senate who are acting in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

One last point on the subject--this is one that I always remind my colleagues and even my opponents of. I believe the hottest ring in hell is reserved for those who attack our children and our families. If you want to take me out on an issue, so be it. Leave my family, my kids alone. That ought to be a rule on both sides of the aisle.

There is another issue we need to face squarely: Will victims of sexual violence be more or less likely to step forward and tell their stories after this high-profile political battle ends?

To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, to your husband and your children: I will never forget your brave testimony last Thursday. You gave new meaning to the term civic duty. You spoke not just for yourself but for millions of sexual violence victims who will never ever have that opportunity. I am sorry--genuinely sorry--for the pain that you and your family endured. And I am sorry you were mocked by President Trump at his rally in Mississippi last Tuesday.

The Washington Post reported:

The President laid into Ford with the ruthlessness of an

attack dog and the pacing of a stand-up comedian. The crowd

roared with laughter and applause.

No one could have been surprised with the President's performance. And when I hear repeated over and over again on the other side of the aisle ``We wanted to treat her just as we would have our wife or our daughter to be treated,'' that certainly didn't happen when it came to the President's comments. We owe it to our wives, daughters, granddaughters, and all the women and men in this country who have been victimized to treat them with respect, not ridicule. We owe it to these victims to listen, learn, and stand with them as they relive their shattering experiences.

I believe the debate over this nomination has created a stronger force in our Nation for justice for victims of sexual violence, and I hope those who step forward know that they are not alone. Thank you for your courage.

Tomorrow is another day. We are blessed to live in a democracy that protects our freedoms and gives our citizens the last word at the polling place.

Today, I will cast my vote in the Senate in opposition to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.