political exercise and needs to end now. for these reasons i resolution. >> any objection? majority. >> before yielding to the senator from rhode island, one of the critics of the proposal said it was a solution in search of a problem. the republican o senators believe, obviously, for one supreme court justice to receive gifts andip luxury trips from billionaires to the tune of millions of dollars and another upsupreme court justice to take an undisclosed fishing trip at the cost of $100,000 as business as00 usual to the

court. the r american people will disagree. >> the first let mee thank the chairman for adenting to bring the bill to the floor and get us on it. the republicans have objected to supreme court ethics it's important to make the efft. it's gone very wrong at the supreme court. the objections we just heard amounted to a long discussion o through a great variety of topics through abortion, through past fbi investigations. through wokeness and things we a agree

on like separation of powers it would be helpful to come tinto focus on what we see are talking about here. most of what was said in opposition waski irrelevant to what we are seeking to achieve. we all accept the doctrine of separation of powers. in the's supreme court and any other senator. to be clear, our bill doesn't makehe the supreme court subservient to congress in any respect. obliges the jural branch of government to create it's own ethics enforcement mechanism thatat■p will be run within the judicial branch o

government by the judicial branch of government. there is a concern when the judicial branch runs an ethic program for the judicial bnch of government withinhi the judicial branchju of government. it just ain't so, madam president. the existing state oafai affairs is that the exists requirements that apply to the supreme court, firstre related to reducal and second to disclosure of g gifts

did the justices complain they are investigating justiceat thomas and his disclosures, no, of course not, to hear itar on the senate for a bit disappointing, right now, the jural conference investigates and can sanction for farther investigation justices of the supreme court. we are trying to fix three really simple problems. one is fact-finding. issueinding, ought

in dispute. every memberve of government in the united states subject to any kind of supervision of requirement which is everybody has a process where found in what we wrong. hell, the president of the united states had to sit for a fact finding interview about the t documents in his rage. there are nine people in the entirety of the united states government that had no obligation to do fact-finding. that's pretty dangerous we saw the justice offert a description about what went on behind his family flying mag ga o battle flags mag ga o battle flagses. that has been proven false. this is by information that wasin incontestable. he got the order of things wrong.covid-19 you

shoulded it couldn't have been a school bus stop. you have erroneous facts with no method to review them or completely ignore the facts. justice thomas refused to say a word ability what he knew about his wives' engagement i the insincerely in insurrection while adjudicating their rights. no one else in the worlds wheren someone doesn't come in and say, sir, we have a complaint about your conduct. we'll need to takem a statement.ak ■íib i'llsk you questions.qu at the end we'll ask to review and find your statement. nothing difficult separations of pow ir. nothing tha the chive justice couldn't where he quire.

supreme court staff attorneys conduct that work right now as they repeatedly pointed out. this is an elemental part of the process and applies everywhere. makes no sense for the body for policing thess process to not allow itself the fundamental task of being actual fact-finding. second is a principal so old it's inle latin. no one should judge their own case. that's pretty easy to understand. yet, we let these justices, alone in the united states, nobody else, gets to be the judges of their own ethics obviously, they failed to measure up. transparency and p disclosure.

we know they failed as disclosure publications and they can't keep about meeting thet obligations. justice thomas went back into the previous disclosures to correct them and tellnd the world and judicial conference that the failure to file was an error. earlier, he said the same gifts don't have to be reported. that was personal hospitality that to be reported or now you are going back to cleanup something else. the mistakes are

inexcusable. they commit far less in the way of disclosure mistakes. they have been prosecuted as thein criminal law for those sim disclosures. we need to get this wrong. this requires fact-finding. it will be done by judgesld within the judicialry. no separation of isolate close by saying the conference has been helping us in all of this. it's blown up.

then it was a personal invitation. it was a reading of the personal happen hospitality. they said you are right, that's propos terrous. it was hit like 60 times. my lord, the idea you can trust■j and

follow did rules. the chairman said this is a crisis in ethics. this is a the supreme court created. justice roberts, himself, and jural judicial conference can solve. we'll set up the conference. we set up the recusal laws. let them enforce it. i yield the floor. he canfloor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal:■t thank you, mr president. president. >> if there is no objection. amanda, senator mercly head to the floor. senator durbin, i

have been proud of this working the minimal kind of ethical standards in the highest court in the land. right now, that court has noe code-- enforceable code of conduct. they are elemental and matter of simple ethical conduct and appearance. the supreme court has squandered. it's almost mystical authority. it'sth unique power.

this came after the constitution was written. you can thank justice marshall for that idea the supreme court ethics can strike down what we do here. powerful branch of government. theut most powerful and think of it for a moment. as a democratic republican.an it's unelected. it has life tenure. tellin do this. there was an democratic understand constitution you can image. the power is dependent on adherence tori standards of

integrity that gain sprespect and credibility. it has no policee. force. people following the■k orders are because it's wisdom and integrity have h gained respe. this supreme court is different thanve any other we have seen. it's not just two members of the supreme court. the institution as a whole is possible. the chief justice that's most responsible. so,e. i ask, chief justice noplease endorse the legislation. not just for the sake of your legacy. we know the chief justice cares about it's legacy. for the sake of the court, they are doing things, justices are

committing roars of extraordinary misjudgement not tof mention corrupt taking of gifts and trips that the credibility and trust th court needs. it needs it for the decision to be followed and respected. w what we are doing is simply saying to the court you must have a code of condeducts conduct that's inenforceable. we are not telling them what to do. we are not interfering with their docket. we are not effecting the decisions of the united states supreme court. just simply how they conduct themselves.

weather they take gifts, go on triples paid for by someone else. whether they accept grants. >> it's common sense.n you don't need to be a law school graduate to u understand it. in fact, this idea is just comprehensible ande impactful to the folks that go to work everyday. no one gives them college tuition or takes them on private jets to islands that cost thousands of dollars to reach. to the ordinary american, the everyday american, this legislation not only makes consistency. i think most people think it is legislation like the one that we are debating today. so, i'm not going to

belabor this. i believe, we'll have too go farther. i think are coming to court as part of conference. there has to be court preforms cast like that on the docket. a series of reforms and a lot more ger conan in scope. this act is simple in requiring disclosure rules and gift traveller and income. they are not as strict as those in common a reducal and lead on thomas should have reduced himself long ago from disions

involving donald trump. this judicial ethics le long overdue. this is not bipartisan because it should be. i have argued poor taste.e respect, unshakable respect for the institution. the institution. reverent for what e reflects in america. the court i wounds it would be difficult. my fear is immaterial possible to repair. tthis measure will at least begin the

process. thank you, i yield the floor. >> mr. president, my colleagues on the republican side made the assertion this legislation would interfere. that's a serious assertion. the judiciary is a vital branch of government thaç■t's independent. it's independent. they made decisions and come before it. it's independent. as much as i agreed with the decisions of the supreme court from congress. to make theely in the legislation that interferes in theíz

judicial powers. absolutely nothing with the legislation that responds to it's■$ the conduct. it's pretty shocking. hey, we want you weonboard. we have a private plane don't worry, if you didn't come itea would be beyond occupied. thehe justice does it. they get on the plane andan go.ê by the way, we have a fishing trip it's really cool, let's go. therey is an empty seat it's worth $100,000 and doesn't ha be reported.wz

when we talk about why it's needed. my constitchnts say peter, what are you talking about they can do that and takean the free trip. my colleagues said right. the chief justice has not only the responsibility to deal with the problems and behavior. he's not doing it. anher point made weee need a supreme court that h has the credibility and confidence of the country. when t aret

contested and codes of conduct. they are not doing it. free trips and private planes and yachts. what do we have to do to take those trips. people decently. you don't get free special trips just because you are of the deal here.

that's nottutionally protected. this is self severing conduct by people withnduct by lifetiming appointment. it's really truly shocking and astonishing. appellate court they can't do this. only nine folks thatan can do it.pp self ios the supreme court eroding thepu confidence of theblic. they have from the people from long time appointments and they are squandering it and turning a blind out to everything they serve. so, this ethics

legislation is necessary abo the supreme court will not do. when you have the responsibility. the united states can't face down. all of us should be doing everything we s ytcan to restore confidence inhe the judiciary. this is step one. i yield back. >> mr. president. people were asking what happened to the supreme court. why is it so corrupt. why hasn't the chief justice reigned it in.i' i have been to 25

town halls previously and again, in community after communitypé people want to know how has it occurred that the supreme court squandered things. they aren't alarmed about the members of the court. taking special favors. it's worth millions of dollars not justices have w taken millions. let's see, over the last few years in 2004 valued at 6,000,500. it's the current and former justices of

the court. justice thomas taking gifts valued, 193 gifts valued at $4 million. justice alito taking gifts valued at $170,000. how is ite possible the highest court the land is such a low level. $300,000 luxury r.v.s. trips to indonesia. the court released their own code of a publicity stunt. a code of ethics th fails to address the obvious conflictsio of

breaches of public trust. justice may be blind bute we can't turn a blind eye to these injustices. congress are separate but equal. it's our job check and balance one another. certainly, should have issued for itself, a compelling code of ethics the balas is for us to fdo it for them it's the responsibility too it. protect them from their own common instincts of taking gifts they should never touch the reducal and transparency acten will require a

strong enforceable code of ethics based on the facts of the case. the letter of the law and principals of our o we the people constitution. not based on relationships forged on super yachts and fishing trips and gifts of $300,000 r 300,000rvs. who w here,le if you were called to defend yourself in court would feel like you get a fair hearing if the party has been giving thousands of millions of dollars to the judge hearing the case. who hear would think you are getting a nodf one. we all understand this is corruption and horrific conflict of interestmq

we understand it's unacceptable and the court failed it responsibility to american peope the supreme court must stand for the interest of the people and not the powerful. think of the life altering cases on reproduct five rights and working rights. transparency they nee legitimacy. they needtima accountability. which it american people need justice unpolluted by people having issues before the court. i urge my colleagues, let's or the integrity of the court and pass the

ethics reducal and transparency act. it's my pleasure to yield too my colleague senator. >> i ask you to reconsider. the rule of law and system of ordered liberty sony many americans severed anded sacrificed at home and abroad. it'ss a fragile thing. it's held together by the confidence of ethics and integrity of those appointed to service. we have seen a number of challenging factors aroundhi ethics and integrity. we speak about a supreme court.;p

a shocking series of revelations. justices have accepted over years. huge amounts of gifts.st the suggestions have been made. notde just democrats but j a partisan attack and few justices can try to roll back or undermindecisions they maybe dislike th is a compelling counterpart. seeing a series of stories in thual street journal in 2021. there are dozens of judges where they implicatedan the value. they introduced the bipartisan code of ethics and

omtransparency. m■ne moves faster. here itrk floor, no oneup argued the sa people court needs to be above the law. nay areui required to disclose their stock holdings and about the accountable for failures to o reduce or disclose. that bill passed unanimously. every senator federal employee of senior decision making role is bound ethics. that's how the

american people know ifç2 there is ab appearance of propriety. two of the supreme courts a recent poll shows that most of the american people had faith in the institutions and confidence in them. we leave to be concerned about the gitimacy of the institution. where the disclosures and consequences can't be acted upon. the highest court in

the land shouldn't have the lowestl standards. we should take a vote on the bill. the supreme court ethicss reducal and act. be controversial. about tracking one justice or another. someone who clerked from a federal judge and chief council clerked for a federal judge, many of us are lawyers in and clerked for federal judges. we know the importance o an independentdi judiciary and nonpartisan judiciary. the most power of the court is the supreme court. when they issue landmark decisions you man muss -- unanimously. todayer they issue decision after decision that are 5-4ng and producing challenging secondary waves in our pic supreme court

is to hold the role that are intended it must do so above reproach. that's not where we are today. our supreme court must make itself accountable to the american people. we shouldn't read disclosure after disclosure in the press to learn about the conduct of the justices. just a few moments ago earlier this evening i had t tihonor of meeting with the new nominees for our nations service academy. waving r their volunteering to serve our nation.he they will be granted the opportunity of a exchange for signing on the dotted line and severing our home abroad and defending our nation and constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. i just completed a

trip to the south pacific where i visited manella. there is a world war ■xii cemetery marking the graves of 17,000 americans. did crosses don't mark democraticbl republican. the freedom they fought and system of justice the rule of law and constitution they took up arms against japan and worked tirelessly alongside our alleys to see a world under assault from imperialism. they didn't so-so do so on principals but out of a commitment to ourho nation. we should honor, those who severed and sacrifice in a generation oror two eye go and those willing to serve in

sacrifice today going forward. by restoring ethics and transparency to the united states supreme court. they have passed a shameful shadow, nothe just the appearance of impropriety by conflict. it can be resolved.d pass this bill. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: us of this morning from jackson, mississippi is naacp president and ceo derrick johnson. thank you for your time this morning k let's talk about a recent cbs poll based on exit polls from 2020 that showed based