[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6121-S6122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Now, last week, the Judiciary Committee concluded its hearings on 
President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. 
Over the course of 2 days of questioning, Brett Kavanaugh managed to 
avoid definitively answering nearly every question of substance, making 
a mockery of his participation in the hearings. He refused to say that 
he believed Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. He refused to say that 
he would affirmatively uphold the existing healthcare law, including 
protections for over 100 million Americans with preexisting conditions.
  He even refused to visit what many consider to be his extreme views 
on executive power and would not even say if he believed the President 
was obligated to comply with a duly issued subpoena.
  It didn't matter if members of the Judiciary Committee phrased the 
questions about already decided cases or hypothetical situations. When 
he got an already decided case, he said he couldn't talk about those. 
When he got a hypothetical case, he said he couldn't talk about those. 
He couldn't talk about anything--anything. What the heck did we have 
him before us and the American people for if he refused to answer any 
of these questions?
  So after 2 full days of questioning, the American people are no 
closer to understanding the kind of jurist judge Kavanaugh would be if 
confirmed to the Court.
  In my view, Judge Kavanaugh's silence on crucial questions about Roe, 
healthcare, and executive power speaks volumes about his fitness for 
the Supreme Court. There were so many questions he failed to answer or 
were purposely evaded, and many times, when he did answer, his answers 
were totally unsatisfactory and did not answer the question.
  Senators Leahy and Durbin, for instance, asked numerous questions 
about his involvement in the Bush administration controversies, 
including interrogations and the nominations of controversial judges, 
like Pryor and Pickering. Judge Kavanaugh either avoided answering or 
offered misleading testimony.
  In 2004, Judge Kavanaugh told Senator Feinstein that he didn't know 
about a potential judicial nominee's views on abortion in the vast 
majority of cases, but recently released emails show that he was told 
about and discussed nominees' views on ideology, including Roe.
  Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowledge of the Bush 
administration's policy on detention and interrogation of combatants, 
but emails released last week indicate that he had meetings on the 
subject, reviewed talking points, and opined on legal strategy.
  Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he only learned of President Bush's

[[Page S6122]]

warrantless surveillance program when it became public, but an email 
suggests he knew about a memo justifying the White House's 
authorization of the program.
  Judge Kavanaugh said, for instance, again, that he didn't personally 
work on the extremely controversial Judge William Pryor, but new 
records tell a different story. Emails show Judge Kavanaugh was 
personally involved.
  So the extent and the number of these discrepancies is very 
disturbing, and these discrepancies were made about only the small 
portion of his record that Republicans have released. Given what we 
heard last week, who knows what is hidden in the 90 percent of Judge 
Kavanaugh's record that Republicans continue to hide.
  I was disappointed to hear that yesterday Chairman Grassley said that 
his committee would not examine Judge Kavanaugh's misstatements. He 
said it was an ``executive branch decision'' to look at misleading 
testimony, which clearly defies all logic. Clearly, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee prefers to turn a blind eye to Judge Kavanaugh 
repeatedly misleading his committee. He, like his colleagues, just 
wants to rush the nomination through.
  The misleading testimony Judge Kavanaugh gave in his confirmation 
hearing raises larger questions about Judge Kavanaugh's fitness for the 
bench. Here we have a partisan attorney, involved in every major 
partisan legal fight for two decades and who shaded the truth about 
those events to a congressional committee in order to cast his 
nomination in a more favorable light. What does that say about his 
impartiality? It certainly doesn't suggest that he is simply this 
nonideological, nonpolitical, neutral arbiter of the law.
  Part of our responsibility in the Senate is to ensure that all 
judges, especially at the Supreme Court level, meet the highest 
standard of judicial impartiality and ethics, lest the Supreme Court 
become simply an extension of the partisanship we experience here in 
Congress and his rulings be viewed as illegitimate by half the country.
  So I urge my colleagues on the other side to scrutinize Judge 
Kavanaugh's comments to the Judiciary Committee and decide for 
themselves whether he was completely forthcoming, because if a nominee 
provides false or misleading testimony to a committee, that should 
weigh very heavily on the minds of every Senator when it comes time to 
vote to confirm or reject the nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.