of the door in that room, half ofrs them republican. that'sro important, and it's really fantastic that we have that level of transparency. election officials practice extreme transparency. they know it's important. even during the last thousand days they've invited election deniers in to see how elections work. they've shown them their machines, they've shown them their processes, they've invited them to ask questions. that's all very, very important. i think one of the troubling things is though that that has not been enough, that people are stills consuming the lies. they're understandably disappointed about the outcome of the election. there's not an american citizen whoen hasn't experienced an electoral disappointment. that'sec incredibly disappointi. there are gaters who are -- grifters who are making -- >> here on c-span2 we're going to break away from live coverage to the u.s. senate.

..

through the capital for joint address to congress since the founding of the nation of israel, 75 years ago, she has important allies and fiercest friends reviews was the first country to recognize israel as an independent state and to this day our bonds remain strong, or partnership essential. while we have our differences the u.s. and israel are united in the most profound ways that tunisians could be pure america's support for israel must never waiver. because israel will be an essential partner for the u.s. in the 21st century but i look forward to meeting with president herzog this morning at a joint congressional leaders and welcoming him to congress. now on the ndaa. last night the senate began the process for for consideration of the annual defense built on a

bipartisan vote 72 hyphen 25. this morning we locked in agreement to begin consideration of amendments on the floor, begin voting this afternoon and we want this process to be open and fair without being dilatory. we want both sides to input neither side should be rail the builder we should avoid the chaos we saw last week in the house that greatly hindered the ndaa process. so far we've avoided that. the process inefficient has been constructed and moved along at a good pace. i'm pleased to say the managers package passed 51 amendments, 21 from republicans 21 from democrats and nine bipartisan. i do hope there will be effective managers passage with even more priorities for both sides. the senate ndaa process is an example of how even with all our disagreements this chamber is able to come together to provide for our nations defense, take care of our service members, take care of our civilian dod workforce in the best in

modernizing our defense and intelligence capabilities. if both sides keep working together i hope we can finish passing the defense authorization bill before august. and i think most of us would like to see that happen. there is no justification for letting it's built into the fall. we have a lot of work to do before we get there but we are on track to get it done. we have every reason in the world to finish the ndaa bill quickly because there's a lot both sides can celebrate in this years bill. many of ndaas provisions by typically fly under the radar because they seem incremental but in their totality they make a huge difference in our country. we will make much-needed progress on additional new areas like out competing the chinese government. will take a few steps on ai legislation that will boost resources in a major way to tackle defense crisis can strengthen the bonds with our allies around the world especially the uk and australia. i hope you have a vote on the full package first dirt on

competing against the chinese government, i'm pleased this years ndaa will have over a dozen amendments welcomed the president of israel, isaac herzog, to washington. unfortunately some of the loudest anti-israel voices in the president's own party took president herzog's visit as an opportunity to call the world's only jewish state racist, and house democrats' left-wing boycotted president herzog's joint address to congress this morning. these activist theatrics are unbecoming of elected american officials, and they are a distraction from the real threats that america, israel, and our arab friends face in the middle east.

i hope these threats were the focus of the conversation between the two presidents. of course the threats to our shared interests have grown in large part due to the biden administration's naive approach to the world's largest state sponsor of terror, iran. over the last two and a half years iran has dramatically increased its nuclear activities and even rebuffed the administration's repeated begging for a return to president obama's flawed deal. it has consolidated influence in iraq, syria, and lebanon. it funds and equips terrorist groups dedicated to israel's

destruction. and the deadly arm of its irgc extends right up to israel's borders. in the arabian gulf, iranian military vessels have targeted or seized commercial vessels offshore nearly 20 times since 2021. on the arabian peninsula, iranian weapons have rained down on americans, saudi and emirati partners. in iraq, iran works directly with shia paramilitaries that threaten iraq's sovereignty as well as iraq's neighbors and u.s. forces, and hezbollah,

hamas and other terrorist groups send out massive flows of iranian support to increasing attacks on israel and american lives. violent plear-up -- flare-ups along the border with lebanon have israeli forces on particularly high alert. but as our friends face growing threats, they need more bipartisan solidarity from washington, not performative lectures from politicians. earlier this year the president warned ominously that israel cannot continue down this road in his efforts to pass domestic judicial reforms. according to reports, it's a message he intends continuing delivering to the israeli prime minister in the weeks to come.

well, mr. president, nobody here in congress seems to like it when foreign politicians weigh in on american domestic politics and tell us how to do our job, so i try to stay out of domestic politics of fellow democracies. i have confidence in the israeli people and their democratically elected leaders, including president herzog, who is welcome to the capitol today, and prime minister netanyahu, who will travel soon to washington. ironically, the radical house democrats who crowed about boycotting the president's historic address are the ones who could benefit the most from his perspective on guiding a coalition government and a diverse nation toward greater security, prosperity, and peace. president herzog's remarks were

a reminder to anyone willing to listen that even in the face of growing threats, israel and its arab neighbors continue to offer tremendous opportunities to actually promote peace. i was in the region earlier this yee and i can assure any skeptics that the promise of the abraham accords is real. it is change changing the cf the region that remains extremely important to the united states. i hope president biden will seize on this progress and help israel and saudi arabia improve their relationship and achievable and transformational goal. here in congress, we have a tremendous opportunity before us to demonstrate our commitment to israel by prioritizing american strength with the ndaa.

i hope our colleagues will continue to work swiftly to finish this essential business. now, on another matter, while democrats like president biden may not like the israeli government's attempt at judicial reform, they're obsessed with doing it themselves here in the united states. for the past several months, when they're not rubber-stamping radical nominees for the federal bench, senate democrats have been laser focused on pushing a coequal branch of government and bending it to their political will. to do so, our colleagues plan to steer the judiciary committee into the thin es -- the thinnest constitutional ice. this week, the committee will mark up what democrat are calling supreme court ethics, recusal and transparency act. but in the interest of actual

transparency, let's discuss what our colleagues' intentions here actually are. for months now the justices of the court have been the subject of an uptick in pearl-clutching and hysterics from the political left and their media allies. we've been told we should be outraged that the justices dare to buy and sell property and take vacations, that they speak at universities and write children's books, and that their spouses dare to pursue careers of their own. as i've said before, i believe in the integrity and honesty of each member of the court and the justices and their families should continue to ignore desperate attacks peddled by democrats and organs of yellow journalism.

but, no matter. which -- no matter which headline is chosen as a pretext on any given day, it's the same old intimidation campaign by the left to undermine the court. by their own example, senate democrats have repeatedly told the american people that the entire federal judiciary exists for no other reason than to fulfill their changing political whims. they've threatened justices by name on the steps of the court and threatened the institution itself in untimely amicus briefs. in each instance the democrats have signaled their open disdain for a body that refuses to interpret the constitution through the lens of their party's platform. they've shown how afraid they are of a court that upholds our laws as they were actually written. and they've expressed their profound misunderstanding of the

supreme court's purpose in our republic. now, this week, same senate democrats who recently threatened to strip the court's security budget would like us to believe that they're driven by nothing more than the pursuit of ethics and transparency. the same democrats who warned solemnly about defending democracy would like to shatter the independence of a coequal pillar of our government. the -- the partisan bill before the judiciary committee this week deserves neither the court's cooperation nor any senator's support. i would urge each of our colleagues to reject it.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, just about every week now, we learn something new and deeply troubling about the justices serving on the supreme court. the highest court in the land in the united states and their conduct outside the courtroom. from unreported luxury getaways with billionaire benefactors who have business before the court, to donor-funded teaching positions that double as all expense paid vacations, to a political megadonor buying a home that belongs to a justice's relative and then allowing that relative to continue living there rent free. we've learned all of this in just a few months.

and last week another troubling report. according to the associated press, justice sotomayor used her taxpayer funded court staff to help sell copies of her book. in particular by pressing libraries, community colleges, and other public institutions to buy additional copies of her memoir and children's books in conjunction with her speaking engagements. let me tell you, if i or any member of the senate failed to report an all expense paid luxury getaway or if we used our government staff to help sell books we wrote, we'd be in big trouble. the same would be true for members of the house or cabinet officials and any presidential administration. that's because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from using taxpayer funds for personal gain. but the same, sadly, is not true for the nine justices across the street.

unlike every other federal official, supreme court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. let me repeat that. unlike every other federal official, the nine supreme court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. they are the most powerful judges in the entire nation and yet they are not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards. it's time for that to change. the highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee which i chair will consider legislation i have joined senator whitehouse in introducing. known as the supreme court ethics and recusal transparency act. our legislation would require the supreme court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. it would also add new recusal and transparency requirements to federal law. and these requirements would apply to every justice no matter

which president of which political party appointed them or their ideological views notwithstanding. i wish this legislation were unnecessary. the fact is the chief justice of the united states supreme court, john roberts, could clean up the supreme court's ethical challenges on his own. and for years i have encouraged him to do just that. it was more than 11 years ago, more than 11 years ago when i first urged the chief justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct. but he didn't accept my suggestion. and what has happened in the years since? i'll tell you. sadly, the american people's confidence in the supreme court has cratered. public support for the court is at an all-time low.

so if we are set to restore the public trust in our nation's high court, we must begin by enacting legislation i've introduced with senator whitehouse. i thank him for his leadership on this issue for many years. i hope every member of the judiciary committee on both sides of the aisle will vote tomorrow in support of supreme court ethics and recusal transparency. and, mr. president, i would like to address statements made earlier today on the floor by the republican leader. it was his analysis and his comments on the bill which i've just described which he said takes us out to the thinnest constitutional ice. the relationship of the legislative branch, congress, and the supreme court is unusual. the supreme court is expressly created by the constitution. other courts are created by statute and they become important to us in so many

different waifs. and the relationship between congress and the supreme court is somewhat unique. we have nine members of the supreme court. that is not required by the constitution. the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle ever the 19th century. it's nine today. it was other numbers before that. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. and when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there's a bipartisan bill which i am authoring now, cosponsoring with senator grassley, a republican from iowa, to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also handle the annual budget. congress passes the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined.

we do not have the authority nor are we ever trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. that is up to the court itself. but whether it comes to the administration -- when it comes to the administration of the court and rules of administration, congress has played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the ethical situation in the court as a, quote, up tick in pearl clutching in hysterics. that colorful term delys the fact that the things i described here are very basic and concern americans of all political faiths. to think senator mcconnell said we've been told we should be outraged that the justices dare to buy and sell property and take vacations. of course he misses the point. if they want to buy and sell property, that's their business. but when someone else is buying and selling property of a justice or his relative, that is relevant for the public to know if the person buying the property has any business before the court or any impact on the

judgment of that justice. it's the same old intimidation campaign by the left, according to senator mcconnell, to hold this hearing and consider a bill dealing with the ethics of the supreme court. what he conveniently ignores is the fact that i first letter i sent to the court on this subject was 11 years ago. the court's changed dramatically in that period of time. but my messages remain the same, whether the court is dominated by liberals or conservatives or something in between. that makes quite a difference in his argument. he calls our effort open disdain for a body that refuses to interpret the constitution through the lens of their party's platform. it is not open disdain. it is a recognition that what's going on at the court is unsustainable. what they've done, the conduct that has been disclosed already has raised serious questions about the ethical standards of the court. we want to make sure that change is for the better, to maintain the independence of the court,

and it still -- still i struggle to understand the logic on the other side of aisle when it comes to ethics on the supreme court. they seem to think it's partisan if we raise this issue. it wasn't that long ago, just last year, 2022, that we considered the issue of disclosure of stock transactions. a bill was passed, a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by senators cornyn and coons and it went to the supreme court and they adopted it as their standard of conduct. apparently when it comes to those ethical considerations, cooperation between the two branches was acceptable. why isn't it acceptable today? as we set out to do. the first thing i did when we initiated this subject was to contact the supreme court and let them know we were sending a letter to the chief justice inviting him to come testify and appear and describe the situation at the court and how it was being handled.

he respectfully declined and responded with his own defense of the current situation. but we tried from the going up not to make this partisan and trade to make it respectful under the constitution. i'm sorry that the chief justice did not accept our invitation but we tried to engage him and found that the best way to move forward is to consider this legislation tomorrow. i think it is a step in the right direction to say that our nine supreme court justices will at least be held to the same standards of ethical conduct as every other judge in the federal system. that is not an unreasonable requirement, and it's one that i think would start to repair the image of the court, which badly is in need of repair. i yield the floor, mr. president.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess until 2:15. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate is in recess until >> the u.s. senate is in recess for the weekly caucus need exterior today lawmakers continue work on the 2024 defense programs and policy builder known as the national defense authorization act or lawmakers are expected to start voting at 3 p.m. eastern on amendments to the bill. watch live coverage of the senate when lawmakers return at 2:15 p.m. eastern today here on c-span2. >> the senate judiciary committee is working committee is working legislation dealing with the conduct of u.s. supreme court known as the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act.

against established a code of rules relating to the justices personal activities outside of their official duties. watch live thursday morning as they can they debate the bill begin at 9:30 a.m. eastern c-span three, c-span that are free mobile video at or online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, and republic thrives. fries get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cab. u the next 2020 for republican presidential candidate asa hutchinson diusses his proposed policy agenda to overall federal