Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another matter, next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on President Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Senators both on and off the committee to do their constitutional duty, to advise and consent on his nomination, they must have time to review the nominee's record.

Unfortunately, Chairman Grassley has so far frustrated our effort to get full access to the judge's records.

First, he requested only 10 to 15 percent of Kavanaugh's White House record, unilaterally declaring the bulk of his time in the White House irrelevant.

As the National Archives works through that request, the Judiciary Committee has been accepting documents from a lawyer hired by the Bush Library to prescreen documents. That lawyer, Mr. Burck, who counts Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and White House Counsel Don McGahn among his clients, has provided only 6 percent--6 percent--of Kavanaugh's White House record to the Judiciary Committee, recently declaring some documents personal rather than Presidential records, a determination we have been given no basis for.

Judiciary Republicans went even further in their efforts to conceal Judge Kavanaugh's record by labeling another small portion of those documents committee confidential. So of the 6 percent, close to one- third cannot be seen by anyone but members of the Judiciary Committee, and they can't talk about it to others. That is 4 percent of Kavanaugh's record being made public, and there are no guidelines, no rules, as to which 4 percent is being made public and which 96 percent is being withheld. Obviously, one might think the lawyer, who is clearly totally hooked into the Republican appointment of Kavanaugh mechanism, would not allow things that might be controversial, that might put Kavanaugh in not such a good light. Yet there is not even a standard as to which documents are made public and which are kept confidential.

Does that sound fair to the Senate? Does that sound fair to the American people who have a right to read and understand who this potential future Supreme Court Justice may be?

The burden of proof should not be on disclosure of documents. We believe in disclosure. We are an open place. Senator Grassley has made disclosure of things throughout the executive branch a hallmark of his career. Yet now they make the burden of proof on those who want to disclose, and the presumption is documents will not be disclosed. It is so wrong.

Any fairminded observer would be hard pressed to say that the review of Judge Kavanaugh's record has been transparent, open, and fair. It has not been.

The Supreme Court Justice, the next one, will have immense influence over the lives of Americans for generations on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights to healthcare, protections for preexisting conditions, civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, LGBTQ rights, and so much more. The next Supreme Court Justice may very well make crucial decisions about the limits of Executive power and accountability, something that hangs in the balance right now with all of President Trump's actions.

We know already that Judge Kavanaugh has some deeply troubling views on these issues, both because of his writings and because he was selected by a President who explicitly promised to pick pro-life judges and judges hostile to our Nation's healthcare law.

So, in order to get a complete picture of Judge Kavanaugh's views on these crucial issues, his record should be made public. There may be some highly relevant information on issues like Roe v. Wade, campaign finance, affirmative action, and more, contained within the documents Chairman Grassley has labeled ``committee confidential.''

Again, there is very relevant and significant information, even in the committee confidential documents, about Roe, campaign finance, affirmative action, and more. They should be made public, and Senator Grassley can do it with a flick of his pen. I would appeal to him as a man, again, who has stood for disclosure and openness, who has probed and gotten angry at executive branch members of both parties for withholding information. Now, of course, we have this 180-degree turn. It is not like the best of Chairman Grassley, and I hope he will change his mind.

Certainly, there is an offer to allow Senators to view these documents, but they ought to be released to the public. We don't have secret proceedings when we choose a Supreme Court Justice. It is not the Senate going into the Old Chamber and debating among themselves. These documents should be made public. The Senate should not be in the practice of shrouding the eyes of the public from the crucial business of learning what a Supreme Court nominee will be like.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source