[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 124 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3130-S3132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Continued


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                                 Israel

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, President Biden 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' 
leftwing 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, 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 2\1/2\ 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

[[Page S3131]]

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 America's Saudi and 
Emirati partners.
  In Iraq, Tehran 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 channel massive flows of 
Iranian support into increasing attacks on Israeli and American lives.
  Violent flareups along the border with Lebanon earlier this month 
have Israel's forces on particularly high alert, but as our friends 
face growing threats, they need more bipartisan solidarity from 
Washington, not performative BDS or lectures from politicians in glass 
houses.
  Earlier this year, the President warned ominously that Israel 
``cannot continue down this road'' in its efforts to pass domestic 
judicial reforms. According to reports, it is a message he intends to 
continue 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 the domestic politics of 
fellow democracies.
  I have confidence in the Israeli people and their democratically 
elected leaders, including President Herzog, whom we welcomed 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 year, and I can assure any skeptics 
that the promise of the Abraham Accords is real. It is changing the 
geopolitical and economic climate of a 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--an 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.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. President, now, on another matter, while Democrats like President 
Biden may not like the Israeli Government's attempts at judicial 
reform, they are obsessed with doing it themselves here in the United 
States.
  For the past several months, when they are not rubberstamping 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 onto the thinnest constitutional ice.
  This week, the committee will mark up what Democrats are calling the 
Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. But in the 
interests 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 have 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 have 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 headline is chosen as a pretext on any given day, 
it is 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 have 
threatened Justices by name from the steps of the Court and threatened 
the institution itself in unfriendly amicus briefs. In each instance, 
Democrats have signaled their open disdain for a body that refuses to 
interpret the Constitution through the lens of their party's platform.
  They have shown how afraid they are of a Court that upholds our laws 
as they were actually written, and they have expressed their profound 
misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's purpose in our Republic.
  But this week, the same Senate Democrats who recently threatened to 
strip the Court's security budget would like us to believe that they 
are driven by nothing more than the pursuit of ethics and transparency. 
The same Democrats who warn solemnly about defending democracy would 
like to shatter the independence of a coequal pillar of our government.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  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 have 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 book 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 would be in big trouble. The same would be 
true for Members of the House or Cabinet officials in any Presidential 
administration. That is 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 is 
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, Recusal, and Transparency Act, or 
SCERT 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 U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, could clean up the 
Supreme Court's ethical challenges on his own, and for

[[Page S3132]]

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 will tell you: Sadly, the 
American people's confidence in the Supreme Court has cratered. Public 
support for the Court is at an alltime low.
  So if we are set to restore the public trust in our Nation's high 
Court, we must begin by enacting the legislation that I have 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, votes tomorrow in support of the Supreme Court 
Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.
  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 have 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 ways. 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, and it was established in the middle of the 19th century. 
It is 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 is 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 trying to exercise the authority to 
change or influence a judgment. That is up to the Court itself. But 
when it comes to the administration of the Court and the rules of 
administration, the Congress has played an important role.
  Senator McConnell described our concern about the ethical situation 
in the Court as an ``uptick in pearl-clutching and hysterics.'' That 
colorful term belies the fact that the things that I have described 
here are very basic and concern Americans of all political faiths.
  Senator McConnell said: ``We have 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 is their business. But when someone else is buying and selling the 
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 is 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 the first letter I sent to the Court on this subject was 
11 years ago.
  The Court has changed dramatically in that period of time, but my 
message has remained the same, whether the Court is dominated by 
liberals or conservatives or something in between. That makes quite a 
difference in this 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 is 
going on in the Court is unsustainable.
  What they have done and the conduct that has been disclosed already 
has raised serious questions about the ethical standards of the Court. 
We want to make sure that changes for the better to maintain the 
independence of the Court.
  And still I struggle to understand the logic of those on the 
Republican side of the aisle when it comes to ethics in the Supreme 
Court. They seem to think it is 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 is 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 that 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 that invitation and responded with his own 
defense of the current situation. But we tried from the beginning not 
to make this partisan. We tried to make it respectful under the 
Constitution. I am sorry the Chief Justice did not accept our 
invitation. But we tried several different ways to engage him and the 
Court and found that the best way to move forward is to consider this 
legislation tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  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 is one that I think would start to 
repair the image of the Court, which is badly in need of repair.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________