[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 162 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6401-S6402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on Friday, Senators Flake, Collins, and 
Murkowski, joined by Democratic Senators Coons, Klobuchar, and others, 
made the only fair move to demand that the FBI investigate the credible 
allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett 
Kavanaugh. It was the right thing to do. It was fair to both Dr. Blasey 
Ford and to Judge Kavanaugh.
  For too long Republicans have rushed this process forward and likely 
would have rushed to a final vote if not for the prudent and bipartisan 
effort of those Senators to demand a full FBI investigation.
  What is important now is for the FBI investigation to be serious, 
impartial, and thorough, to ferret out the facts and do so quickly. 
That means interviewing all--all--of the relevant witnesses and 
accepting corroborating accounts when they come forward. It also means 
following up on any leads that emerge from the process of the 
investigation.
  The FBI has ample resources to do this within the 1-week period 
requested by the members of the Judiciary Committee. No one is asking 
that it take longer than a week, but everyone is asking that it be done 
thoroughly and completely within that week.
  There is concern that the White House has placed severe constraints 
on the investigation. Until today, the President tried to dodge that 
responsibility, with the White House even saying the Senate is somehow 
responsible for the scope of the investigation. Let me be clear. The 
Senate has no control over the scope of an FBI investigation of this 
sort--only the White House.

[[Page S6402]]

  A few hours ago, I was glad to hear President Trump say he would like 
to see Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh interviewed by the FBI as part of 
this investigation and that the FBI should be able to interview 
anyone--anyone--appropriate. We have to now make sure that those 
comments reflect what the White House has officially told the FBI.
  Democratic Senators, led by Ranking Member Feinstein, have asked the 
White House what parameters it is giving to the FBI, but we haven't yet 
received the reply, so we need an official document from the White 
House made public so the whole country knows what the scope is, and it 
should outline the scope of the investigation.
  We told the President: If you are truly giving the FBI the ability to 
follow the facts wherever they lead, show us; show us what White House 
Counsel Don McGahn has instructed the FBI. Because prior to President 
Trump's off-the-cuff comments in the Rose Garden, there were rumors 
that the majority staff of the Judiciary Committee were drawing up 
limited interview lists for the FBI and otherwise circumscribing the 
investigation. Partisan staffers on the Judiciary Committee should not 
exercise any constraints over this investigation.
  Democratic staffers asked the Republican majority staff to get on the 
phone with Counsel McGahn to discuss what should be the parameters, and 
they were told: Forget it. It is the same partisan staff who has 
blocked documents, who has operated in a purely partisan way, and who 
couldn't come up with an agreement when these things had always been 
done in a bipartisan way. To let the partisan Senate staff on the 
Republican side dictate the terms of this investigation would be wrong.
  Ultimately, President Trump and Counsel McGahn know the buck stops 
with the White House. It is only they who can instruct the FBI. Now 
that the President has said he wants a full investigation, that he 
wants both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to be interviewed, we assume 
that will happen, but we want to make sure Mr. McGahn tells the FBI 
just that.
  The Senate and the American people deserve to know what is the scope 
of the investigation because this investigation must be done in a 
manner that allows the public to have confidence in its findings. 
Whether you are for or against Judge Kavanaugh going to the Supreme 
Court, it will only benefit the country if the investigation is 
regarded as fair, clear, and not constrained, particularly by partisan 
means. For that reason, we hope the FBI will be available to brief the 
Senate on the results of the investigation before a final floor vote.
  Democrats are not interested in delay for the sake of delay. This can 
all be completed quickly, but it must be done right.
  We are a society based on the rule of law. It is therefore crucial 
that the American people have faith in the judiciary, especially the 
Supreme Court.
  Our job as Senators is to decide if someone has the intelligence, the 
temperament, the independence, and the credibility to earn the title of 
Justice for a lifetime. Character matters. Character matters deeply.
  Anyone who watched the Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday should 
have serious, if not disqualifying, doubts about Judge Kavanaugh's 
credibility and independence--qualities we should expect in any Supreme 
Court Justice.
  First, let me address the nominee's independence. After Dr. Blasey 
Ford's courageous, polite, detailed, and credible testimony to the 
committee, Judge Kavanaugh embarked on a partisan screed, angrily 
implicating sitting U.S. Senators in a conspiratorial plot to destroy 
his nomination. He even had the temerity to label the recent 
allegations a part of some ``revenge of the Clintons,'' an absurd and 
shopworn boogeyman of partisan Republicans from the Gingrich era on 
forward. That was from Judge Kavanaugh's prepared opening statements.
  When questioned, Judge Kavanaugh impugned the motives of sitting 
Senators, rudely interrupting and dismissing questions in a way I have 
never seen tolerated from a witness. Judge Kavanaugh asked a Democratic 
Member of this Chamber whether she had ever blacked out from drinking--
an offensive question asked by a nominee who was there to provide 
answers, not evade answers by asking very nasty questions.

  It was quite clear from Thursday's testimony that Judge Kavanaugh 
harbors deep, deep partisan resentments. That is not the kind of 
Justice we need on the Supreme Court.
  I must say, this isn't the first time I thought that Judge Kavanaugh 
was too partisan. When he came before the Judiciary Committee in 2004 
and 2006, I noted that he was involved in every major legal partisan 
fight of the Clinton and Bush eras, from Ken Starr to Bush v. Gore, 
from torture to signing statements to Manny Miranda's theft of 
Democratic emails. I wondered then, as I do today, whether we should 
promote a loyal partisan warrior to a position that calls for 
independence and judiciousness.
  Frankly, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was a stunning display of 
partisanship and recrimination that solidified my skepticism about his 
objectivity and independence. I understand these issues are emotional. 
I understand that his character was being questioned. But rather than 
providing sincere and measured testimony in his defense, which would 
have been far more effective, Judge Kavanaugh revealed that his world 
view is skewed by a very partisan lens.
  Let me address probably the most important question about Judge 
Kavanaugh: his credibility. President Trump has suggested that it 
doesn't matter what someone did 36 years ago in high school. Whatever 
view you take of that notion--I believe, given the seriousness of what 
Dr. Ford said, it should matter--the question about Judge Kavanaugh's 
credibility is one that weighs on us today, on his behavior right now. 
It is a question not about what Judge Kavanaugh did as a 16- or 17-
year-old but what he has said as a 53-year-old nominee to the Supreme 
Court.
  The harsh fact is that we have mounting evidence that Judge Kavanaugh 
is just not credible. He has dissembled about the Bush administration's 
policies on torture, the nomination of controversial judges, grand jury 
proceedings, and the theft of Democratic emails. Thursday's hearing 
provided fresh examples of Judge Kavanaugh's difficult relationship 
with the truth. Judge Kavanaugh gave answers about his yearbook page, 
supposed drinking games, and high school behavior that simply defy 
credulity. Judge Kavanaugh said he ``never'' drank so much that he 
forgot events--a characterization that does not track with multiple 
descriptions made by many high school and college classmates.
  So the 64,000 dollar question is this: Is Judge Kavanaugh credible? 
Will Judge Kavanaugh say anything, deny anything, mislead about 
anything to secure confirmation to the Supreme Court? Does he have the 
integrity, the independence, the credibility to do the job? Does Judge 
Kavanaugh deserve the promotion of a lifetime, for a lifetime? These 
very serious questions about Judge Kavanaugh's state of mind and who he 
is today, not who he was in 1982, should weigh on the conscience of 
every Senator.
  In my experience with Judge Kavanaugh, in 2004, in 2006, and again 
throughout this process, I am left with the impression that Judge 
Kavanaugh would dissemble, mislead, even prevaricate--even 
prevaricate--about everything from the momentous to the mundane--
whatever it takes to cast his nomination in the most favorable light. 
Faced now with the gravest of allegations and the sincere testimony by 
a very courageous woman, I believe the Senate should consider the issue 
of credibility to be front and center in deciding whether Judge 
Kavanaugh deserves a seat on the bench--a lifetime appointment to the 
most important court in the land.
  I yield the floor.