grace under pressure. that is christine blasey ford. i expressed my gratitude shared by many in america that great teaching moment yesterday. we should honor her by acting in a way that keeps faith with her honesty and bravery. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, as the world knows by now yesterday we had a hearing on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to be a member of the united states supreme court. it was necessary to do so because an allegation had been made by doctor christine forward to the ranking member, senator

feinstein had since july 30. because doctor ford requested confidentiality and wanted to remain anonymous none of it was brought to attention until sometime after the judge original confirmation hearing occurred. the judge visited with 60 plus members of the senate including the ranking member. it was never mentioned to him, no questions asked about it. ... . . didn't agree to have her letter released to the press. she did not consent to having her identity revealed. she did not want to be part of what has turned into a three ring circus. but, once there when she asked

to tell her story, we consented to doing that. yesterday we heard from doctor ford. as well as judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh asked to be heard to clear his good name speak directly to the american >> and we have her judge kavanaugh's rebuttal. what we have learned is there is no evidence to corroborate doctor ford's allegations. all the people she said were there on the occasion in question said they have no memory or didn't happen. no corroboration. as we all watched judge kavanaugh we saw his righteous indignation.

and aimed his fear he not at doctor ford and with this unfair confirmation process despite the embarrassment to me and the united states senate. to see the precious confidentiality to leak that information to the press and thrust her into the national spotlight on - - spotlight under the circumstances is an abuse of power. having made that request once she was in the spotlight we felt w it was very important to trade on - - treat her respectfully and listen to her story. anybody who would listen, i wanted to treat doctor for the same way my mother or my sister or my daughters would

be treated under similar circumstances. conversely i thought we should treat judge kavanaugh fairly. just as we would our father or brother or son. in other words it is more about doctor ford that doctor ford and judge kavanaugh. we heard the judge respond with righteous indignation talking about his family exposed with threats. including the two young daughters. i know it was a hard pill for many democratic colleagues to swallow to hear the truth what the terrible process has resulted both to judge kavanaugh and doctor ford. but too much was on the line

for judge kavanaugh to withhold his defense of his good name. after all his reputation is on the line. his family is on the line. his family including his wife and two daughters are caught up in a miserable experience or it must be. i am still glad we held a hearing and we are grateful to rachel mitchell to ask her probing questions. why would this senator yield to ask questions of doctor ford? because we wanted to depoliticize the process and to treat doctor ford with respect to recognize that somehow, somewhere she has

been exposed to terrible trauma. but it was important for ms. mitchell to ask questions and get answers. so we can do our job i appreciate chairman grassley doing his best to run efficiently as much as that is possible. i said at the firsty hearing after senators would speak over each other and make motions out of order when one senatorde said i am breaking the confidentiality rules. this seems like a hearing by mob rule. not the civility should expect from the united states senate. but chairman grassley has done then best anybody could do under difficult circumstances. this hearing was notot easy for

doctor ford or judge kavanaugh. it has been painful for everybody involved. but looking closer to a resolution on this nomination. today with the judiciary committee i'm glad we could pass that nomination to the senate floor. summer saying we are moving too fast. to them i would say it is clear what the objective of the opponents of the nomination is. the objective is delay. delay. delay. some have said their goal is to delay the confirmation past the midterm electionso to hope it turns out well for them and essentially defeat the nomination to keep the supreme court vacancy open until president trump leaves office. first there was a paper chase that they needed more documents or perhaps they said

you have too many. but if you have already announced your opposition to the nominee why do you need more information unless you are open to changing yourin mind? but that is not the game we are engaged in. now those that demand the background investigation into two new allegations be opened up and today the majority leader have announced an agreement to extend the background investigation up forma another week for the witnesses to be interviewed by the fbi. but the most recent allegations are so r absurd to

even not even run a story by the new york times reported by ms. ramirez they worked hard to corroborate her story by interviewing dozens of potential witnesses neither would confirm nor corroborate her story. but they did find as ms. ramirez was talking to one of those individuals that was interview that she admitted she may have misidentified judge kavanaugh. in other she a words she admittd she may have the wrong guy. that is dangerous. all you need to do is listen to an accusation to make up your mind.ug you don't need to listen to the other side like judge kavanaugh said in doctor ford's case it didn't happen.

he was not there. listening to one side of the argument it does make making up your mind easier. you don't have to think about a fair process in order to decide whose arguments you believe. and that the claim is true. this is gotten so ridiculous a young woman named t9 represented by stormy n daniels lawyer it is riddled with holes why would she continue to go to parties with high inoolers when she was college and why would she go to ten of these drug and alcohol infused parties where

gang rape occurred? it is just outrageous. incredible. we encourage all of these individuals no matter how incredible. to submit to an interview with the bipartisan representation of the judiciary committee. this is standard operating procedure. but that basic background investigation is done by the fbi but they are not investigating a crime but they take notes on their conversations with witnesses but they don't tell you which witness to believe or what conclusions to draw. they send that to the judiciary committee for the judiciary committee to follow up. j with additional questions ifif necessary.

and crime punishable as a felony. they both carry serious consequences and a seriousbo warning to may try to lie their way into a background check. >> but the confidential letter released without her consent contributes to the circus atmosphere. and as we try to investigate these claims the democratic professional staff had been refusing to cooperate. or participate even as they continue to make more demands. but it is clear their appetite for delay is insatiable and delay is the ultimate goal. for those who want the fbi

involved i will tell them the fbi is and has been involved. it conducted the background investigation just as it did in six previous occasions when judge kavanaugh was vetted for the federal government. he has been through six fbi background checks. none of these matters have, previously. yesterday at the hearing was part of our job to continue the investigation. people have a very narrow idea of what that entails. not just a background check but the interviews by the professional staff on the judiciary committee and that is that hearings like we had yesterday hearing from judge kavanaugh and doctor ford. that is our job and our constitutional role to provide

advice and consent. our colleagues across the aisle if they were really interested in a background investigation of doctor ford's complaints in a confidential manner like requested, and that is in the enclosed setting. to have a senator sits on this allegation and turn it into the committee to protect their anonymity. and then to question both judge kavanaugh because the goal really wasn't about

giving judge kavanaugh or doctor ford a fair hearing but the way of the confirmation vote. >> one week ago he was interviewed and he talked about a fair process. >> but under the constitutional system if you are accused of a crime and believe me, judge kavanaugh has been accused of multiple crimesus. >> and then that burden to come forward and so if you don't do that then your accusation is not enough to meet that burden. usually we have corroborating witnesses and other people present at the time who can corroborate what the

allegation is. but all the witnesses identified by doctor ford cannot corroborate or confirm the allegation. they say i have no memory or simply it didn't happen. >> even with corroborating witnesses i did not find this but i vaguely remembered it someone on my t staff said deuteronomy 19. one witness is not enough toto convict anyone for a crime. matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. m this is a rule of ancient origin may be back to the old testimony. where no one else can confirm

this story and it's not enough to carry the day. also false choices. this is not a matter of he said she said. but he said /-slash she said /-slash they said. judge kavanaugh, doctor ford, the rotc of witnesses said another. and then to corroborate doctor ford story. in that denial of any participation of anything remotely that doctor ford alleges. l after 36 years and for obvious

reasons for doctor ford's account had inconsistencies and gaps with timing, location, details. we need to listen to her and take her story into account. i would want her the same way my mother or sister or daughter treated undert similar circumstances. and then 36 years after the fact. we also cannot ignore the full throated defense and the denial of judge kavanaugh. so for that testimony is in the character of judge kavanaugh. going back to 1982 and indeed

as mitch mitch long - - mis miss mitchell prosecuting sex crimes in arizona with more than two decades of experience and to file against the defendant and only witnesses identify with doctor ford to deny the event actually occurred. and that in fact she could not even get an arrest warrant if you cannot identify the time or place you cannot even get a search warrant. you can just shop - - show probable cause. here is where we are. if the allegation we discussed yesterday is uncorroborated and unproven coming up in the

context of six federal background checks that the three alleged eyewitnesses and if it conflictst, with the account of the 65 women who knew him to behave honorably in high school and even politically motivated and if our colleagues chose not to act on this information and then to spring it on us afters the fact, there is no reason in my mind we should not move forward with the nomination. it isn't just about those subsequent allegations by

ms. ramirez. and with additionall allegations each more salacious and incredible or out of character with brett kavanaugh. and it's going to continue. as long as it's unresolved more and more to come out of the c network that are uncorroborated accusations and not provable. and to be left hanging like a piñata and then take another whack at him and his family. but we have to move forward we cannot establish a precedent by which a nominee can be derailed by an accusation.

we will never get good people to agree or allow the nominee process as a drive-by character assassination. but the only ammunition and then to be the innuendo speculation, suspicion and not actually let that happen or establish that precedent. it would be bad for the united states u do not misunderstand me i'm glad doctor ford had a chance to have her say. we owe her that much. the victims can and should be

heard. and those who are fortunate enough to have sisters or spouse. this could be very personal matter to have fathers or brothers. many have brothers. with the uncorroborated allegation exploit vulnerable people it will forever poison the confirmation process and discourage people fromoo coming forward m and to stand accused. i supported judge kavanaugh's

nomination i have known him since year 2000 and for my experience he has always been upstanding and a well qualified individual. everybody from fellow lawyers to law clerks to former presidents of the united states to say that. but where the decisions were affirmed by the united states supreme court and i know he will judge fairly and carefully and belongs on the highest bench. and then we will finally vote to put him there. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.