[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 183 (Saturday, October 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6446-S6447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 59

  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 59, submitted 
earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble 
be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  If I may, just briefly, before the Presiding Officer calls for 
objections, just describe the resolution, which expresses the sense of 
the Senate that dark money undermines the integrity of the judicial 
system and damages the perception that all people receive equal justice 
under law; that dark money organizations funded by anonymous donors are 
now playing an outsized role in the selection of judges and Justices of 
the Supreme Court of the United States and have spent millions of 
anonymous dollars on advertising campaigns supporting those selections; 
that the people of the United States have no idea who is funding these 
campaigns and what business those funders might have before the Court; 
that the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network and other 
groups have been a part of this and they are heavily dark money funded 
in this role; that then-Candidate Trump said of his judicial selections 
that they would ``be hand-picked by the Federalist Society''; that his 
White House counsel boasted that the Federalist Society had been ``in-
sourced''; that the Washington Post reported that Leonard Leo, then of 
the Federalist Society, helped raise $250 million from mostly anonymous 
donors into this effort--and I will leave the rest of the details to 
interested readers who want to pursue it.
  But I would say to Senator Daines' umbrage about dark money in 
Montana campaigns, if there is anything worse

[[Page S6447]]

than dark money in political campaigns, it is dark money around courts, 
and that is the problem we face right now, and that is what requires 
looking into
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have 
already made my remarks about the hypocrisy on this issue of dark 
money.
  I think it is also worth pointing out that it was a very different 
situation in 2016, when Merrick Garland was nominated by President 
Obama. In every White House controlled by one party and the U.S. Senate 
by another, the President of the Senate, going back to 1888--in an 
election year when both the Senate and the Presidency are controlled by 
the same party, you move forward; when not, you don't.
  That is exactly what we did. We had an election in 2016. President 
Trump won, and here we are in 2020 with Republicans controlling the 
Senate, and the White House began to move forward.
  So with that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would just add, that was not what 
Senator Daines or anybody else on the Republican side said at the time. 
I was here at the time, and what was said at the time, particularly by 
Senator Daines is ``I don't think it's right to bring a nominee forward 
in an election year''--not when the party's control is split in one way 
or another. ``I don't think it's right to bring a nominee forward in an 
election year'' because the American people should have their voice 
``reflected.''
  That has not changed. This new emphasis on the party difference is 
fundamentally the rule of ``because we can.'' If that is going to be 
the rule, if that is the rule that Republicans are prepared to adopt 
here--that what matters around here isn't precedent, isn't principle, 
isn't what is right, but is just because we can--then please don't 
feign surprise in the months and years ahead if we on the Democratic 
side follow that same rule that you are saying is the way to proceed 
today.
  In the same way that it is at least ironic for Republicans to stand 
here complaining about dark money when it was the Republican Party that 
protected dark money here on the Senate floor, it will be equally 
ironic if the party should turn around later on and Democrats seek to 
use the measure of ``because we can,'' and you raise objections. You 
are basically here on the Senate floor forfeiting your right to make 
those objections in the way you are behaving on this nomination.
  With that, I will yield the floor to Senator Scott.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, given the time, I will reserve the 
other unanimous consents I have. I understand that we are going to 
close, and we are close to that time. So I appreciate Senator Scott's 
coming to the floor to respond to those, but I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I will shortly ask to have a quorum 
call by noting the absence of a quorum, but before I do that, I wanted 
to point out just one issue of vocabulary, if you will, which is that 
the definition of ``court packing'' has actually two operative 
definitions on the Senate floor: One is to expand the number of judges; 
the other is to take advantage of existing vacancies and try to use 
them to change the balance of the courts and to put in judges who are 
predisposed to certain rulings.
  That is, in fact, the meaning that Senator McConnell gave to that 
term when he said that President Obama was seeking ``to pack the D.C. 
Circuit with appointees'' when he was filling vacancies; that Senator 
Cornyn used when he said President Obama wanted to ``pack the D.C. 
Circuit''; what Senator Grassley used when he announced President 
Obama's ``efforts to pack'' the D.C. Circuit; and when Senator Lee of 
Utah accused President Obama of trying to ``pack the D.C. Circuit with 
unneeded judges simply in order to advance a partisan agenda.''
  So when we describe all that has taken place across the last three 
nominations--all the procedural abnormalities, all the peculiarities of 
funding, all the odd political behavior on the other side, the 180-
degree, tire-squealing reversals, all of that, we are actually 
following the vocabulary that you all used about the D.C. Circuit, just 
to be clear on that point.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

                          ____________________