we'll continue to push for legislation to create a binding code of conduct and recusal standards that the american people can last year the judiciary committee reported to the floor the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act. importantly, this legislation's ethical and would apply equally to every juic court regardless of the party of the president who appointed them. the supreme court has failed to crisis that has engulfed must d. madam president, it is a simple fact, there is a chief justice of the supreme court, john roberts. it is within his power to resolve this ethical issue tonight, to have it done by the morning to make it clear that the supreme court is taking a different course, one credible to the american people. justice alito cannot stand in judgment of himself. the fact that we have to come to

the floor of the senate to plead this case makes it clear that there are no avenues to be followed for ethical consideration before the court today. that can change. the bill that is pending on the calendar is a step in the right direction, and i totally support it. i close by asking unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by justiceg officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: tha you very much. as the presiding officer knows, i have come regularly to the to aspects of the scheme run by a bunch of right-wing control the bunch of right-wing control the president, you and i both know that it is fundamental to a democracy the belief that we can have a peaceful transmission et at the supreme court after the billionaire gifts program justi luxurious free undisclosed free

travel gifts around the world, paid for homes for parents, education for dependents, and even an expensive motorcoach that appea to have never had the principal repaid. now we know that maga battle flags were flown over the alito residences. we don't know all the facts of what happened. we do know that alito's version of events differs from corroborated statements of otto events. and for know that people need to be able to trust that judges highest standards ofimpartiality, which includes avoiding even the

appearance of bias. and say what you will about the excuses and reasons for flying maga battle flags over the house of a supreme court justice, you cannot say that those flags did not appear. you cannot sayteate an appearan reasonable person would raise serious questions about whether that flying maga battle flags over his home had a bias, particularly with respect to ary 6 maga insurrection. whatever those fact differences are, they are importa t bottom e problem is it's hard to get those fact differences resolved

because alone in the entire federal governant, alone, supreme court justices are subject to no factfinding process. if the presiding officer or me the r- or the minority leader or majority leader or me were subject to ethics complaints, e ability to do factfinng and even to take statements. it's true over in the house. even the house can be subject to sanction, can be subject to to make statements. heck, president biden sat for an official interview aut the documents in his garage. but the only the

nine justices, are protected even from any factfinding, the most rudement foundation of legal process. defend the integrity of legal process in this country and what they do is they exempt themselves from its most rude meantry pillar. obviouslyt of a long string of problematic to t public's attention, none of has factfinding over at the court. so for sure these far right■m justices have demonstrated that they need to be subject to■ an enforceable ethics code. remember the routine theon, fir bother us, nobody's concerned. then it all right, we're going to have this ethics statement that we're going to put out about our ethics and

then it was okay, okay, we'll do an ethics code. we'll play by the rule of baseball except for the part of umpires. we'll have an ethics code and we'll get to call our own balls and strikes andhe be no dispute because there will be no factfinding done. we also know that the justices won't talk to us about their problems. roberts declined a meeting. alito sent us a letter expanding on his challenged version of events, but his correspondence is not subject to the voe r veracity of falsehoods or omissions. again, making matters worse, alito's story accounts with

other reports and the supreme court and no other government has a mekism for getting to the truth. if the court won't create one then we need to and my supreme court ethics bill would do just that. every investigator knows that you have to take a to the truth the supreme court itself took statements from employees when alito-dobbs draft opinion leak. but no matter what the circumstances, no matter how bad itts, no factfinding process applies to the nine justices. just them. everybody else in government is subject to some factfinding process, not them. that can be fixed. nowhere is the supreme court

forbidden to have an inbox for ethics complaints. nowhere is the supreme court forbidden to hire clerical staff to sort out nutty from legitimate ethics complaints. nowhere is the court hire staff into the legitim ethics complaints and do a little inve nowhere is the court forbidden interview justices to help determine what the facts are. i'm sorry, sir. should take les hour, but i need to go through the events in this complaint and get your statement of what the facts are here. that's not hard. and nowhere is the court forbidden from allowing, for instance, a panel of senior respected federal chief judges who administer the ethics code in their own circuits to compare

what the justices did, what the factfinding investigation revealed with what those chief judges would allow their circuits. and then make that comparison public. none of that offends the separation of powers. it would be all run within the judicial branch and without any actual disciplinary punishment, the rebuke of a supreme court justice being told that their conduct wouldn't fly in other f powerful corrective deterrent. there's an old saying that the best way to show one stick is crooked is to lay a straight stick down next to it. a panel of senior and respected chief judges could provide that straight stick. even on an advisory basis, the

straight stick would be valuable and we are going to continue working both on the judiciary and finance committees to get to the bottom >> tuesday on c-span, the house returns at 9:00 a.m. eastern. members will also bin work on the first federal spending bill for 2025, which includes fundi for military construction projects and the veterans affairseptment. on c-span two, th sate comes in at 10:00 a.m. and will vote on thes/ nom nuclear regulatory commission for another five years, with his current term set texre at the end of the month. senators will also consider nominations for d.c.'s superior court. at 10:00 a.m. on c-spathe,

attorney general merrick garland teifies before the house judiciary committee aere voted last month to hold him in contempt of congress for fling to turn over audio recordings from the special counsel classified documen at 2:30 p.m., fbi director christopher wray testifi on law enforcement priorities and th agency's 2025 budget request before a senate appropriations bcommittee. you can also wah r live coverage on the free c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. buckeye broadband pports c-span as a public service,