[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 128 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S5442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on Friday, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Chuck Grassley, sent a letter to the George W. Bush Library 
requesting only a small portion of Judge Kavanaugh's records. 
Traditionally, letters from the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting 
the records for a Supreme Court nominee have been bipartisan and 
complete. When Democrats were in the majority, we joined with the 
Republican minority to request all--not some, all--of Elena Kagan's 
White House documents. When Democrats were in the majority, we joined 
with the Republican minority to request all--not some--of Judge 
Sotomayor's documents. At Republicans' insistence, that included 
documents from 30 years ago, when she served as a board member of the 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, because they had 
questions about her views on certain of those issues. It was a request 
that we thought stretched a little far, but we went along for the sake 
of transparency and openness. So this idea that it should be only the 
legal records is totally undone and gainsaid by what they requested of 
Judge Sotomayor.
  Now the Republicans are in the majority, and the shoe is on the other 
foot. Chairman Grassley, unfortunately, has broken with all precedent 
and refused Democratic requests for Judge Kavanaugh's full record. He 
sent a letter to the Archivist at 5 p.m. Friday--that is usually a time 
when people do things they don't want people to catch wind of--making 
such a request.
  My Republican colleagues know that this was wrong. That is why they 
sent it so late on a Friday, hoping to bury it. This letter makes it 
clear that Republicans intend to block the Senate and the American 
people from access to the bulk of Judge Kavanaugh's White House 
records.
  So the question looms: What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? 
Why wouldn't they grant the kind of openness to records that America 
prides itself on? Why wouldn't they grant a request for openness of 
records when we are going to vote on someone who will have huge power 
over the lives of average Americans for a whole generation? Why 
shouldn't we see what that record is about before we vote?
  In this letter, Senate Republicans are requesting only documents from 
2 of the 5 years that Judge Kavanaugh was in the White House--only 
documents from his time in the White House Counsel's office, not as 
Staff Secretary. But Staff Secretary was the most senior job in the 
White House the nominee held. In Judge Kavanaugh's own words, the 
position of Staff Secretary was hugely influential in his career. He 
worked there during a time of great controversy.
  Over the weekend, the New York Times reported, for instance, that as 
Staff Secretary, Brett Kavanaugh likely oversaw President Bush's 
controversial signing statements on torture. By his own account, he was 
involved in President Bush's decision to select a Supreme Court 
Justice. Why the heck that is not relevant to choosing him as a Supreme 
Court Justice is beyond explanation. They can't give an explanation; 
they just want to rush it through.
  There is no good reason to argue that Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff 
Secretary isn't relevant to understanding what kind of Justice he might 
be. Yet, Senate Republicans requested none--absolutely none--of the 
records from this period in Kavanaugh's career. What are they hiding?
  Worse yet, here is what we learned Friday, amazingly: The documents 
we are going to receive are being screened by a partisan lawyer with 
ties to President Trump and Steve Bannon. That is right. The lawyer who 
is going over these documents, who is screening them, not only has ties 
to President Trump but also to Steve Bannon, one of the most partisan 
people this administration has ever seen.
  My Republican friends are checking all the boxes on the obstruction 
list--hiding documents, collaborating with political operative lawyers, 
and then causing the process to slow down so that there is as little 
time for the American people to review the documents as possible. A 
bipartisan letter should have been sent 2 weeks ago.
  When Democrats were in charge, that is what we did. We didn't tell 
the Republican minority: You can have this request and not that. 
Senator Grassley says: Well, there was never a White House Counsel, a 
White House Secretary. What is the difference?
  As Republicans, they requested Judge Sotomayor's records for the 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund 30 years earlier. We 
didn't say: That is a difference. Every request was granted. Why are 
they not being granted now? They are hiding something is what many 
people would say.
  I hope my colleagues will bring these political games to an end, for 
the sake of our country, for the sake of comity, and for the sake of 
bipartisanship. Our Republican friends talk a game of bipartisanship 
but never seem to act it out. And they invoke a double standard: What 
was good for them when they were in the minority is not good for us 
while we are in the minority.
  The Senate and the American people deserve access to the full records 
from the man who has been nominated to a lifetime appointment in such a 
powerful position as Justice of the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues 
on the Republican side will bring these games to an end.

                          ____________________