Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source