[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S5464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate has a duty and a 
responsibility to methodically review a Supreme Court nominee's record. 
That is why, in past years, the Senate has sent bipartisan letters--
bipartisan--to the National Archives and Presidential libraries 
requesting the necessary information on a nominee. Democrats and 
Republicans agreed that however we would ultimately vote, transparency 
and openness were principles we all shared.
  It appears that bipartisan tradition has been tossed aside. It was 
fine for our Republican friends when they were in the minority and 
President Obama nominated candidates to the Supreme Court. But the 
double standard is glaring, enormous, and detrimental to America.
  Now the Republican majority has cast aside Democratic wishes for 
openness and transparency and has made a partisan request for only a 
small subset of Judge Kavanaugh's records. It is such a break from 
precedent that we have to wonder: What are the Republicans hiding about 
Judge Kavanaugh's record? What are they so afraid of that they tie 
themselves in knots--into a pretzel--to contradict everything they 
stood for when they were in the minority?
  Today, every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee has joined Ranking 
Member Feinstein in making a formal request of the National Archives to 
provide the exact same universe of documents provided during the 
confirmation of Justice Kagan. When I say the same request, I mean the 
exact same request.
  The Judiciary Committee has updated the letter to refer to Judge 
Kavanaugh, but in every other way it is identical to the request that 
Democrats and Republicans made for Justice Kagan that Republicans 
insisted on when she was nominated by President Obama.
  By the way, it was Senate Republicans who insisted on this standard 
during previous confirmations. Democrats, even though our nominee might 
be exposed, agreed because we believed in openness, and we are not 
hypocritical in saying that it is only good when we are in charge, not 
when you are in charge. We believe it works both ways.
  Ranking Member Feinstein has made it clear that we don't need or want 
every single scrap of paper from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff 
Secretary, but to review none--none--of the nominee's records for most 
of his senior role in the White House is an act of what might be called 
willful opacity. That is why we are not following very sensible, 
bipartisan precedent now.
  Judge Kavanaugh himself has said that his time as Staff Secretary was 
especially useful to him as a judge and that his time in the White 
House made him a better interpreter of statutes. I hope that the 
National Archives will understand the dilemma we are in and the unusual 
circumstance we are in, and, ultimately, I hope my Republican 
colleagues will understand and that both the Archives, either on its 
own or with Republican acquiescence, will make the right decision in 
the interests of transparency, consistency, and fairness. To do 
otherwise is to forsake the Senate's constitutional duty to provide 
advice and consent on this surpassingly important nomination.

                          ____________________