Healthy democracy doesnt just look like this. It looks like this where americans see democracy work and truly informed, public graphs, get informed straight from the source, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the Nations Capital to whatever you are its the opinion that matters the most, this is what democracy looks like. Hes been powered by cable. The Senate Judiciary committee voted to advance a bill to establish Supreme Court justice in recent disclosure about personal conduct outside of their official duties. The pass along party lines with only one amendment that condemns racist comments for justices receiving bipartisan support. The committee debated the bill during three hour session on capitol hill. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order, welcome, everyone. We have a conflict with the Senate Appropriations committee in bothh committees and we will start the meeting sometime this morning and who may be called to attend. We will work to accommodate keep things moving forward. U. S. District judge for the district of pennsylvania. We will vote on 359 Supreme Court ethics Transparency Act of 2023. Hi , google, 11 years ago a different Supreme Court in the first call on chief Justice Roberts to adopt a code of conduct Supreme Court justice. In virtually every other Public Servant in the federal government. I want to commend senator for his performance, hes worked on this for a long time and respect the good work hes put in. This is a crucial first step restoring confidence in the court after a steady stream of records of ethical failures released to the public. Public support for the supremeu court is at an alltime low. Members withhold comments after we consider the nominee. I will respond in a minute but we had concerns about political donations but we have looked and everything is okay and ready to move forward. Is there anyone would like to speak on this nomination . U. S. District judge of pennsylvania, the purple color will. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] nomination will be reported. Thank you for consideration 359. The Supreme Court ethics refusal Transparency Act circuit. The past several months steady streams of news reports highlighting ethical failures of the highest court in the land, Supreme Court justices appointed by republican and democratic president s. He even paid for the education of a relative of Justice Thomas. None of this was included in his Financial Disclosures. Justice samuel alito to the fishing trip to alaska and traveled on a private jet and conservative donor like Justice ThomasJustice Alito did not trust any of this and he did not believe it washe required to disclose private jet travel sitting in what was otherwise empty tax from the court stuff to promote additional sales in conjunction with this and failed to recuse herself involving her book publisher. The Staff Members in this room today were involved in would be in violation of the rules that governrn congress because all of us are subject codes of conduct that prohibit for personal gain. If we fail to meet these standards. The same is not true for the justices across the street. Unlike every official, Supreme Court justices are c not found y code of ethical conduct. They are the most powerful in america and get does not require the most basic standards. But we are considering will change that and will cause the Supreme Court to adopt enforceable code of conduct and add refusal transparency requirements and would bring all justices of the Supreme Court in line with every other federal judge in america. Historians and you will scholars from across the spectrum agree legislation imposing code of conduct on the Supreme Court necessary and well within the congressional authority. Members of the committee on both sides of the aisle have long lead efforts on the Supreme Court accountable and transparent. In 2021 in this transparency that required all officers including Supreme Court justices to file disclosures of securities transactions just congress. Rs of the bill passed the congress unanimously, both parties and signed into law in the Supreme Court is abiding by this. In a bipartisan bill i introduced in the Supreme Court to bring all sessions. Someone suggested they are pursuing and target the majority. The reforms proposed in equal force to all justices and more than 11 years ago in a Different Court urging the chief justice court, did not accept my suggestion. More stories emerged on the ethical American People confidence in the Supreme Court dropped to an alltime low. My colleagues, the Supreme Court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the United StatesSupreme Court and strikes the gavel when he says the honorable, chief justice and associate justice Supreme Court of the United States is oh yeah, oh yeah, zero yea. Businesses you for this are admonished to draw here and give attention and save the United States in this honorable court. Three times commercial declares Supreme Court with the enactment of this legislation highest court in the land will make that claim. This will. Be a spirited debate. I hope you know where to go today because we have a lot before the consideration. What youre trying to do is trying to destroy it and its a long ongoing effort here. You have to look at this in terms of what isof going on fora couple of years. In senator schumer, and yuko forward with this awful decision, this is the majority leader. Supreme Court Justice knows the highprofile decision, the security was the explanation by a represented from New Hampshire when conservative judges had their houses surrounded. Maxine waters who have known for a long time since you aint seen nothingi yet. Democrats look at packing the Supreme Court. The reason you want to pack it because you like the makeup of the court. Youve done just about everything there is to do to delegitimize this court. Members of the democraticip leadership went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threaten people. When it comes to Clarence Thomas, i dont get it but apparently some of you do, democrats need to look at his reputation. Youre going hard and he will fail miserably. This going nowhere. All of us will vote no and i hope you bring it to the floor. A spirited debate about what the bill would do to the court this is not what they would do, its legislation that will change. The Supreme Court was created by the constitution and that branch of the government. Our Founding Fathers decided to create three branches of government in the constitution. The bill you have before us would erode the power of the Supreme Court overtime. It would allow more Court Justices to have complaints against the court. Members of the Supreme Court, it would create a body for anybody to file complaint against the court in the complaint would be adjudicated by lower Court Justices which strikes at the heart of the Supreme Court. The recusal mechanism you cant expand the court, something very mark as he always does, this bill would shrink the court. Disqualified conservatives and every major case and the way you handle recusal is micromanage how the Court Must Decide when to recuse. The individual justice would no longer have that power, youd give it to other justices. That is it constitutional call on the power of the court to do business. None of us have illusions about what is going on here. This will beul the 2024 ballot,i hope. The ever to make the Supreme Court is unlimited. What people on the other side willll do in the name of having people on the court they agree with is almost unlimited. When justice were surrounded in the home, attorney general didnt do anything about it so i tried to work with you when i can. It took 50 years to get it conservativeco court. We did it the oldfashioned way we nominated people and that the boat and worked hard. Not all of these accusations, is nothing outside the norm of the senate when he came to finding people to vote on the court. The bottom line, this is ago designed to make the court stronger or ethical, a bill to destroy it conservative court. The goal to create a situation where judges can be disqualified by statute, rearrange the makeup of how the government is. You complain what is going on and i hope they can find a way deal with the problems but to be lectured by the Democrat Party is a bit rich. Everyone of you openly suggested we should change the number of the Supreme Court and this is your chance to say no, i dont want to expand the court. Pa the position of the Democratic Party expand justices from nine to probably 13 to dilute the power of a conservative court. Think how that plays out over time. Every time there is a change of power in the branch of congress, change the number tong get outcomes we like, that is what you are willing toto do, the mot extreme solution to a problem i can think of. Packing the court destroys the court. Micromanage how the court operates destroys the court. A completer process in the name of ethics designed to disqualify people, it destroys the court. I dont know what the vote will cann the committee but i assure this effort and the court will go nowhere in the u. S. Senate. Thank you, senator graham. Lets be clear, there is only one living senator changed the size of the Supreme Court. The republican leader that shrink the court eight seats nearly a year refusing to consider Merrick Garland nomination. If i may, the position of the minority you do not want to expand the court, is that the position of the Senate Majority . I only speak for myself. Okay, thats one. It is clear there is an effort by the left to expand the court and what senator did is consistent to whats happened. Let me start in this recusal and Transparency Act to the rest of my colleagues for cosponsoring. This would address already sodisclosed misconduct weve sen at the Supreme Court recently. Comprehensive judicial decision is overview but worth remembering to how we got to this markup let me be candid about my belief the Supreme Court has been captured by special interest much like the commission in the 1890s captured by real quote to decide things their way. I knew ethics for a wire when i do start determined justice leah had taken many unreported vacations often with political companions. The theory is a personal institution from a resort owner hes never met, a free vacation hospitality did not reported under federal law. And they shot it down. The verdict of their fellow judge. Other justices had witnessed behavior over decades but did nothingg about it other than soe cases to copy it. Then the coordinated front group showed up at the court and some have been paid by parties and others massed interest in the law. There is a disclosuree rule enforcement is a failure. Showing who is behind these cases. The biggest at no surprised, appeared in this case with the coke brothers main battleship americans for prosperity. I counted 55 and these groups record of justices link their way. Justice thomas and the case, the lawfulness or unlawfulness and failure to recuse depends on simple facts of what he knew about construction activities when he knew it. To this day the court engaged in zero effort to make that determination. It has no. The only court in the country and perhaps the only court in theap world with no ethics procs at all. Then came the news six politically active rightwing billionaires providing massive hospitality for at least two justices. Not one person on this committee could or would except the bonanza had a long secret northwood executive branch nor any other federal judge and that is before you throw in the repeated communion should of justices on the troubles with operatives at the heart of the scheme Supreme Court remains idle. Last two points usually result unique be read as to how it asking about Financial Disclosure obligations Disclosure Committee judicial that purpose. Have beene laughable. They dont disclose these because a private jet airplane is a facility. And the body that implements Financial Disclosure and code of conduct issues is the judicial conference, a body created by congress. Please, lets not pretend that congress cant make amendments to Laws Congress has passed or oversee Agencies Congress has created. For decades, the justices themselves have never objected to and eventually repeatedly and without complaint complied with this structure. So even the court has demonstrated it does not believe that canard. We are here because the highest court in the land has the lowest standard of ethics anywhere in the federal government. And justices have exhibited much improper behavior. Not least in hapless efforts to excuse the misdeeds. This cannot go on here defending this behavior defends the indefensible. Thank you, chairman krishnamoorthi senator grassley. I will be voting against this very partisan Supreme Court ethics recusal and Transparency Act. This bill is not about oversight or accountability. Its about harassing and intimidating the Supreme Court. Over the past several years the far left has mounted an unprecedented assault against the Supreme Court. The far left is unhappy with the courts conservative majority, and detests a handful of its decisions. So the far left has resorted to bullying tactics considering that only 9 of the course decisions last year were on a 63 division. The far left playbook is to attack the court, passed out on the legitimacy of the institution, impugn the reputation of the justices and attempt to dictate the rules and practices of a separate branch of government. Since 2020 we seen proposals to resurrect the failed misguided idea of Court Packing. This is a notion overwhelmingly rejected by the American People when it wasca last proposed durg the new era of the 1930s. Nevertheless, some on the left are actively pushing bills tols pack the court anyway. Fdr could not do it here how do they think they can do it today . In 2022, we saw the extraordinary and unethical leak of the draft dobbs decision. This was an over attempt to ramp up public pressure against the courtt to sway justices before the final decision was issued. Thankfully, these attempts failed. But the far left continues to decoy extreme tactics display the corporate conservative justices homes addresses were publicly posted and shared. Protesters hold weekly demonstrations outside the private homes of justices in violation of federal statute. Justices and their families have been confronted in public, even at restaurants and sometimes on vacation. This has resulted in a real physical security concern, and at least one assassination attempt. Somebodys justices have Young Children who witness these shocking acts of intimidation. Over the past few months the latest efforts are to manufacture claims of conflict of interest. At first there were attacks against the spouses of justices, who also happen to work in the vast legal field. Wereer, no such claims lodged against Justice Oconnor or Justice Ginsburg whose husbands were lawyers, while these justices served on the bench. Nowth there is a drip, drip of stories attacking the travel of conservative justices. These stories conflate trip some years ago, some decades ago, with newly updated disclosure guidelines announced in march of this year. The rule change from the judicial conference is related to personal hospitality exceptions to the disclosure. The justice, the judiciary took action on its own to bring clarity to what was once overly broad and poorly defined. These stories cherry picked, traveled by travel by certain justices. They go on to raise conjecture and misrepresent the facts and failed to explain the rules thaf were then in place prior to these march 7th changes of regulations. Remember many of the events took place years ago during the courts liberal majority. Where was the outrage from the left at that time . Where they pacified by the courts more liberal decisions, or is this newfound ethics focus just simply political smoke and mirrors . Well, the answer is obvious. This is all part of the democrats promise made at the steps of the Supreme Court in 2020, to release the whirlwind. On may 2nd the wall street Journal Editorial Board wrote a great article on this, and ongoing political theater. The article correctly notes that socalled Supreme CourtEthics Reforms is another front to the Political Campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court with the goal of tarnishing its rulings and subjecting it to more political control. Further to quote though, the campaign is on full display in the press with reporters at multiple publications sadly searching for supposed ethics violations or conflicts of interest. That patent rights that, riders have examined and debunked these reports. This is a political project and hype accusations are going to continue to be asserted as if they are serious, indepth wal street journal quote or i d like to enter that into the records. The far left is now calling for purported Ethics Reforms and recusal reform for the Supreme Court chief among them is this bill before us which raises constitutional concerns. Because articlele iii section oe clause one of the constitution states quote, the judicial power of the candidate shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and quote. Unfortunately this bill usurps the constitution. It presents a clear separation of power issue. It also calls for various lower Court Judicial panels to rule out review and rule on the actions ofe the one Supreme Court. And its justices. So can you imagine . Lower courts established by congress would be tasked with policing the Supreme Court in ways our founders sought to avoid. In all of the hearings the Judicial Committee has had on this topic, not one witness was able to articulate effectively how articles, how to articulate effectively how such measures would bee constitutionally soun. The discrete act would create a roadmap for parties to seek out newly defined quoteunquote conflicts, and recusals of processes. This could be abused to disqualify justices who may be unfavorable to the far left view especially on highprofile cases. This bill as currently written risks undermining the independence and the integrity of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts in his letter to chairman durbin dated april 25th included a quote statement on ethics, principles and practices and of quote. This statement undersigned by all justices reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the integrity of the court. So that should also be submitted for the record of this committee. This was all, this was signed by all city justices. I would also like to enter i have already said that. This bill if enacted would bluntly insert politics into the Supreme Court and eroded away at the checks and balances carefully crafted by our founders. Thiste legislation may needlessy force us down a road towards constitutional crisis. S. Therefore, i am not in favor of regulations of this legislation until we know whether the Supreme Courtss own actions takn on march the seventh to clarify the disclosure insufficient. In other words, considering thi legislation probably even if it should ever be considered a year or two and we find out how the new regulations work out. Just like each member of congress and the white house, the Supreme Court has imposed ebbs and flows across the ideological spectrum. During the 1930s scholars had described the Supreme Court as a conservative court. Meanwhile, during the 50s and 60s of the 1900s, the warren Supreme Court was much more liberal. Someday this court will shift again but the actions being considered today are aei resultf a temper tantrum by the far left. By the far left. The viking certain recent Supreme Court decisions and are unable to unilaterally ram their policy proposals through the congress. These efforts to hijack the Supreme Court must stop chief Justice Roberts in his concluding paragraph of biden versus nebraska cautioned against visceral reddick and baseless political hits against the court. Undoubtedly coming to a boil in the last several months. Robert, quote, has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinion to criticize the decision with which they disagree. As going beyond the proper role of the judiciary. The reasonable minds disagree with our analysis. At least three do. We do not mistake this heartfelt disagreement or disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperceptions would be harmful to this institution and our core and our country. At the end of just robert statement. From june 21st in titled, quote, at six and the Supreme Court independents, and of quote. This article also highlighted the details some of the constitutionality, Judicial Independence and bounds of power concerns of these legislative principles foot for so far. I yield. Thank you, senator grassley. Senator grassley has asked that several documents be entered into the record. With unanimous consent, without objection, that will happen. I also ask unanimous consent to be entered into the letter of february 13th of 2012 signed by members of the senate including three senate members. Myself, senator whitehouse, and senator blumenthal. A white house of course addressed to chief Justice John Roberts an issue of the code of conduct and ethics for the Supreme Court. That date, again, february 13th 2012. Im going to recognize as a member seeking recognition and then we will move to amendments. Senator kennedy is on the list. Senator, you are next. Thank you, mister chairman. It would not be difficult, i, think to sit here and pick apart this legislature. I thank my democratic colleagues, i think they know that. There is not a dummy among them. There is not a dummy among this Judiciary Committee. But you dont have to be all over wendell scalia to figure out that this legislation is meant to be a court killing machine. For example, it would allow any jacqueline out there in america in a tinfoil hat who zone dog thinks there are a under not to file a motion to recuse a United States bring Court Justice. What could possibly go wrong . What could possibly go . Wrong my democratic colleagues know that. Im not gonna go to four down that road. Number two this bill is dangerous but it is not serious i think that some of my colleagues know that. They are trying to make a 0. 1 of the reasons im proud to be a senator is because i believe that every person in this body, democrat and republican, loves this country in the past their institution and wants to protect them. I say that because while i am upset with this bill, i would be more upset if my democratic colleagues who are trying to move it when they had the votes. They do not have the votes. You have the votes to get it out of here. But this is dead as a chicken, as dead as tragic an in the house. Maybe im naive but i believe in my heart of hearts that if you did have the votes and you could pass this bill we all know would destroy the United StatesSupreme Court as an institution, you wouldnt do it. Maybe im naive. It is still a dangerous bill. Final point look. This bill is not about ethics. We want to have a debate about ethics . Im ready. This bill as we all know this is about the case. The harvey case. Versus epa. We all know what to tell is. He even if youve never played poker you know what a tell is. I tell hims behavior that gives unintended information about what you really think there are plenty of tells on what this bill is really about. I still cannot get over, mr. , chairman that he said it. I still cant get over that schumer went to the steps of the United StatesSupreme Court and said the following. Im going to quote him, because it gives me chills of the wrong kind. Senator schumer said, quote, i want to tell you justice gorsuch, gorsuch. I want to tell you, gorsuch. I want to tell you, kavanaugh. You have released a whirlwind. You will pay the price. You wont know what you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Oh my god. Later the, next day, our colleague had a chance to fix these remarks on the senate floor. Here is what he said, quote, senator schumer said here, right here there would be political consequences political. Consequences for President Trump and senate republicans. If the Supreme Court with newly confirmed justices stripped away a womans right to choose. What bagatelle do you want . Some of my colleagues in my committee, as is the right, signed off on a brief to the united straits court. They are trying to persuade the court of the basis of logic from side to side and in a particular way. It is not supposed to be a political document. This is what some of my colleagues said in their brief. Quote, it is a another town. Quote, the Supreme Court this is in a brief to the United StatesSupreme Court. Quote, the Supreme Court is not well. The people know it. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the end points of politics. Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control. A nation desperately needs it to heal. That is what this bill is all about. I get it. You disagree with opinion of the United StatesSupreme Court. Will the senator yield for a question . Now, i will not. Im sorry if i could finish my thought. Senator,. I think that is the tell. I thought it was senator blumenthal. If i could just finish my thought, mister chairman. I get. It you disagree with the ruling. You disagree with dobbs. I get a. The answer is not going to destroy the Supreme Court. The senator yields for a question . I will. Now i get it. But, the way to change a ruling in the Supreme Courts go find the right case and persuade them. That is my final point. I appreciate your time. Now i will yield. The senator is aware that there was an assassination attempt on a sitting Supreme Court justice, justice kavanaugh, you are aware of that. Yes. Do you have an opinion on what the impact on an unstable mind might be when the majority leader of the United StatesSenate Stands up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States and makes a threat against the court . What the impact might be on an unstable mind . Im not a psychiatrist or psychologist but i think most with common sense and i think it would be extraordinary. All of this heated affix rhetoric, Clarence Thomas being an uncle tom, i mean, come on. I think it destroys the institution. Again, this bill aint gonna pass. I think we all know that. I still believe that my democratic colleagues if they had the boats wouldnt print to. It came down to it they wouldnt get rid of the filibuster. They wouldnt get rid of the bull they gave away enough power. I get why they have to advocate for but when it came down they wouldnt do it. All of this rhetoric has consequences. Political violence and furtherance in any causes unacceptable. That is the bipartisan committee, i have that is very clear. I have reportedly condemned all violence and threats of violence, or a guard in this weather comes on the right to left. Whether targets election workers, judges, even Supreme Court justices. Last year, Congress Passed the Supreme Court police parity act and the daniel judicial security and privacy act. These bills took important steps to protect the federal judiciary in their families. Including the justices of the Supreme Court. Protecting the judiciary has always been a bipartisan issue. That said, unfortunately, passage of the daniels Security Privacy act was delayed for nearly one year because of repeated objections by single senate republican, not a member of this committee. The Supreme Court ethics recusal and Transparency Act allows for both judicial transparency and security by including preventions preventing the disclosure of private or sensitive information. We can predict private individuals while also ensuring their performing their duties in an ethical manner. If no one else seeks recognition the floor will be open for amendment. T. Senator cornyn . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I cant improve on the statement of senator kennedy, but i do want to add a few thoughts before we get to the amendment process. I cant help but believe this is just another episode in a longstanding campaign of intimidation and of harassment of the Supreme Court and its members. Not that long ago we had a hearing where i played the video of justice Clarence Thomas his confirmation hearing when he referred to the attacks, false attacks against him as a hightech lynching. The reason i thought it was important to play that is because that happened a long time ago and many people may have forgotten or they may not know about the longstanding campaign of harassment and intimidation against the court. The most recent one is the whirlwind threat by the majority leader of the trade date senate. But it didnt start there. Started a long time ago. Justice scalia liked to say that the United States is unique because of its independent judiciary. A lot of other countries have a parchment constitution. The Old Soviet Union one that read pretty well on paper. But without an independent judiciary, the rights and liberties of the people will not be preserved. They will be dictated by whoever happens to be in power at the time. Now, some of the threats against the judiciary are overt, like defendant majority leader others are more subtle or covert, like the letter that was sent by members of this Judiciary Committee and asked to define the Supreme Court of 10 million defined as that if if justice of not put into effect code of ethics for the justices of the court. Thats a threat. Its not as bad as what senator schumer said, but it is a threat against the independence of the court. It my way or we are going to cut your budget. I dont think it is any secret that our Public Institutions are under assault. All of our Public Institutions. I would ask us to think just a moment about what this bill, and this campaign of harassment and intimidation directed towards the Supreme Court, what that is doing to Public Confidence in our independent judiciary. The most cherished and unique institutions. I used to be a judge for 13 years on the trial bench and the state Supreme Court. Total of 13 years of the judge. Judges have codes of ethics. Just like the senate has a code of ethics. Administered by and ethics committee. We all understand how that process works. I dare say that if the Supreme Court decided that they didnt like the ethics code, or the way the Senate Ethics committee administer that ethics code, if the Supreme Court sent a letter over criticizing it, suggesting changes, i dont think any of us will take that seriously. Conversely, the Supreme Court and the judiciary is a coequal branch of government. I cannot help but believe that this Long Campaign of intimidation and harassment is designed not to treat it as a coequal branch of government. Not to build and maintain Public Confidence in some of our most important institutions. Rather, to make it subservient to the will congress. It used to be that the organized bar, the american bar association, in my state to take Barr Association viewed it and their professional duty to defend the judiciary. Judges cannot. They cannot defend themselves. They are not a Political Branch of government. When someone attacked us, for our opinion, that is part of the bargain. We can take to the airwaves, take to the floor of the senate, take to social media, we can defend ourselves. But the Supreme Court and the judiciary cannot by the nature of their job. It falls to other responsible people to defend that institution. That unique institution which makes us different from, literally, the rest of the world. I have no doubt that senator kennedy eluded that this imperium court, this last year, had decided upon two cases the way that our folks on the democratic side it is right because their final. I bought that paraphrase. You get the point. Our colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle appear to be determined to cast the independent judiciary and the Supreme Court as just another Political Branch of office. That is why the talked about packing the Supreme Court at one point. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said if anything would make the courtly parties movie that. One side saying, when we are in power, we will in large number of judges and we will have more people to vote the way we want to do. That is ruth Bader Ginsburg. An icon among liberals and progressives. What i worry about from the standpoint of the United States senate, what do you think youre gonna happen when this shoe is on the other foot . What happens . We tend to think that the laws comment denominator. We tend to operate based on precedent. So, if the precedent is established here, you know what the temptation is going to be like . When the shoe is on the other foot . It may well prove to be irresistible. We saw that when harry reid decided that instead of 51 votes that were required to confirm a judge, all of a sudden the requirement was for 60. Our democratic colleagues filibustered judge after judge after judge. Well, it only took us ten years or so to turn that precedent around. I would appeal to our colleagues who care about this institution, among our other important institutions. What is being proposed here today its not just the code of ethics. The Supreme Court has won. The federal judiciary has one. It is not perfect, just like im sure there is a code of ethics that applies to senators and people may not like it. Our colleagues have suggested, for example, we eliminates ability of senators to trade in stocks, on the stock market, for example. That is a debate that we can have among ourselves, and we should our code of ethics isnt perfect either. We are not going to welcome the idea of the Supreme Court sending us over a checklist of things that we should change as a coequal branch of government. I dont think we are going to change a lot of minds here because the Political Forces have lined up either you are opposed to some of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made recently or you accept them i think we all should be in the posture of accepting them even if we dont like them that is the price we pay for an independent judiciary. That is why justices have a lifetime tenure that why justices salaries cannot be reduced during the term of office. I think our founders are rolling in their graves. They see how much the United States senate and some of its leaders, including the majority leaders have engaged in this Long Campaign of intimidation, harassment, undermining Public Confidence in one of the most important institutions and our government. We have two member who sought recognition senator feinstein, senator lee senator feinstein . This bill, i believe, is going to strengthen the ethical standard Financial Disclosure requirements and repassed that improve the core and some of the ways im going to try to express. The Supreme Court, today, is the only federal court in the country that is not governed by code of ethics. Currently, when Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from a case, they are not required to explain how or why they are accusing themselves. This bill would strengthen the ethical standards, Financial Disclosure requirements and recusal requirements that apply to Supreme Court justices. These changes include adopting a code of conduct for justices and establishing procedures to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct this bill will establish important ethical standards it given a chance. Supreme Court Justices related to their Financial Disclosures and decisions whether to work you from hearing a case. This bill is in line with efforts to improve efforts and disclosures and all federal governments to ensure trust in our democratic system. The bill is not expected to have bipartisan support, unfortunately. I hope it does. I look at this as a major, major, boat. For me and for improvements on this body. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you senator feinstein. Senator lee . I think it is easy for us to take for granted and overlook the extent to which we have all benefited from living in a country that operates under the rule of law. In order to have the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of individual men and women who serve within a government, you really have to some kind of structural protection in place. To protect the people against the risks with devastating consequences associated with the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the field. It was for this reason that some of our leading, legal thinkers including i remember 12 years ago when i first arrived and this in and came out this committee within a few months or so of my arrival we had a couple of Supreme Court justices visit. Justice breyer and Justice Scalia came to talk about the courts. So i recall they do that from time to time period it was something i had seen before, had seen them do this road show exercise in which the two of them would play off each other sometimes telling jokes that each others expense but i was in a goodnatured way. It was during those visits and i believe it was in this very room when justice covey said something that stuck with me. He referred to the fact that along the lines of what senator cornyn was describing a moment ago. A lot of countries there is a constitution. They might even be written on a single document like ours is. It might even contain a bill of rights. A bill of rights. It looks really good. It protects most or often of the individual liberties that our bill of rights seeks to protect. In some cases even list more protection than ours does. But, as Justice Scalia explained at the time, any tin horn dictator anywhere in the world can have a bill of rights. That bill of rights can look really good. Ive never understood what the difference between a tin horn dictator is an irregular dictator, he didnt explain. Hes no longer here for me to ask. Him. But his point was clear. A lot of countries, including and especially those with tyrannical governments, have bills of rights. What he said next intrigued me. What differentiates a bill of rights that mean something from one that doesnt . It is a mechanism by which you can separate out. Or allow power to check power. Thus protect the people from the dangers associated with the excessive accumulation of power. In the few. A. A lot of this is really a independent judiciary. A court system that stands separate, detached, from the political operation of that government. Now, in our system, of course, we have the three branches. We happen to refer to our branch, the legislative branch, together with the executive branch. Headed by the president. We need town but to Political Branches. By calling them that we differentiate them from the court. The court, although it is populated by people who have to go through the political process, have been nominated by the president , confirmed by the senate, once they are put in place, on good behavior, they remain there. For the rest of their lives. Absent other circumstances. It really is and essential part of having an independent judiciary. And without the independent judiciary, there can be no rule of law. It is easy to overlook all the benefits that we reap every single day at a result of that. We are known throughout the entire world of the country where the rule of law is a thing. If you enter into a contract, there will be a mechanism by which the terms of that contract can be fairly interpreted and enforced, enforceable, in a court of law. One of the reasons why countries from, businesses from countries a this is one of the reasons why countries from, businesses, countries of all of the world want to do business in america. They are looking to investll overseas. They may not want to invest as much in some other countries is in the train eight. In fact, they almost never would prefer when faced between the train eight and another country. In many circumstances, in Many Industries they would rather do business in the train eight if they can in part because of this reason. We have all benefited economically and otherwise as a result of this. But the system isnt free and its not selfperpetuating unless we consciously, deliberately choose to protect and collect and protect it we must because you can break it. This is legislation that is a solution looking for a problem, and its a solution looking for problem, thats carried out in such a way that can make a whole lot of things a lot worse than that would, in fact, accomplish something very different than the lofty descriptions that you were hearing from its supporters today. Look, if the sponsors of this bill and those who plan to support it, if they were truly interested in ethics and integrity within the Supreme Court of the United States, i think they wouldve conducted this debate, thist inquiry, in a very different way from the beginning. I do think we would be seeing some of those differences now. I think also its important to recognize that the Supreme Court of the train it does, in fact, have ethical standards. It does, in fact, its out ethics rules, that it supervises that it overseas. We do, in fact, have a judicial conference that cant look into these things, to overlook the. You will hear from the bill sponsor today, youve heard some of this already, those are not nearly enough, they are lax, it basically a postapocalyptic hellhole from ethicalom standar, standard viewpoint or this iss utterly false. Its not true. It is subjectively untrue peer into slanderous and it is deliberately slanderous to undermine the incredibly, the reputation, institutional speaking of the court. And itse justices. I correct myself. I should say some of its justices and ill get back to that in a moment. But they do, in fact, have ethical standards. And, in fact, in many meaningful respects those standards not only match up to those that we follow, in some meaningful ways may exceed those that are reliant on members of the train it senate. For example, in the train it senate we do have the same recusal standards that they do. Wine can be i dont know, a soybean farmer or a tobacco farmer and a member of the United States senate and still vote on bills relating to subsidies for soybeans or regulatory issues associated with tobacco. We dont have recusal standards of their. There are other differences but this is a good one to highlight. Some of these differences you see reflect differences in the role that we play versus the role that they play. So to look at theirs and say oh, that doesnt matter that its not adequate, all hell is breaking loose over there. Its just not true and it is deliberately, or at least recklessly, but i think deliberately deceptive. Look, this thing really would have played out differently if the sponsors of this legislation were truly interested in it in an evenhanded way of enhancing integrity at the Supreme Court. There are clearly instances in which there been activities undertakenen by justices ruth Bader Ginsburg, justice ruth Bader Ginsburg, sonia sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and others that raise some serious question under the rules and standards that currently exist. Notwithstanding those, and all those examples, with one glaring exception, i dont think theres any of us in here who would credibly maintain or contend that any of those things, any of those issues related to the democratically appointed justices i just mentioned, or to the republicans, none of those things amounts to something that could or would or should result in impeachment, removal, criminal prosecution, or Something Like that if those things arise there are remedies to do that. There are are ways we ce who is engaged in a high level of wrongdoing. But thats not on the table here. This is part of why i maintain this is a solution in search of a problem, but it is a solution that would cause a lot of other problems. Because the solution that they propose is one that would completely remake, it would reinvent the Supreme Court. It would reinvent the litigation strategies that go into handling cases before the Supreme Court. You see, because if the person can just by filing a document or making an accusation trigger a review panel of Lower Court Judges, Lower Court Judges whose rulings if the Supreme Courts job to review, and in many instances reverse, boat below if this becomes a law vote before be considered malpractice for attorneys practicing before the Supreme Court. To fail to try to trigger through these aggressive mechanisms are recusal, and to cast even more doubt on the credibility and institutional reputation of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that is very, very unfortunate. This really will change the game because in some of the circumstances if this were tota become law they would succeed. Especially in a politically charged case, they would figure out a way to get one of these panels Lower Court Judges to order the recusal of this or that justice in order to inflict their own carefully designed Supreme Court for that moment. You know, when lawyers go to trial theytr go through the process of jury selection. Most parts of the country, we collect for dear. All the indexes they collect more dire. I donty understand the difference of pronunciation but in texas they do their own way for each sidewn gets their own opportunity to object to each juror. There are two kinds of challenges to a wouldbe member of the jury panel. You get four because challenges, you can challenge somebody for cause, you know, potential juror knows the defendant or the plaintiff, the prosecution or defense or has some type of conflict either side can challenge that and have that person removed from the jury panel. But the other kind of challenge is what we call preemptory challenge. You can remove a small handful of jurors for almost any reason, or no reason at all. It seemsms to me that this legislation would in effect treat the Supreme Court justices approach them at almost the same way one might approach a potential jury with the attorneys having the opportunity to remove individual justices whom they might consider problematic for their particular case. So at the end of the day, we look back at the fact that none of these, almost none of these instances really rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing or impeachment or removal. I dont see it. Its not there. Not from the democratic appointees, not on the republican appointees. I do however see one of them. If you could wrap up, we have the other committee meetingth ot and speeded i understand that your got things to say of that always allowed members to speak. I want all members to have a chance to dohe that. Okay. I will wrap up with all deliberate speed. Im getting to that in just a moment. There is one exception, and in talking about there is one allegation. Its come to light fairly recently with regard to the late justice ruth Bader GinsburgJustice Ginsburg when i disagree with many of her roommates, she is someone for whom i have long respect. There are some very serious allegations that have recently come to light that ive recently become aware of to the fact that she received a 1 million award that went unreported. Now, im still reserving judgment as to exactly what to make of that. Thats the only one of them i would say we might have some very significant ramifications if she were still serving on the court, if she were still alive that might lead to something. Even better i feel the need to qualify that because i dont yet know all the facts. Those havent come to light. Dont yet know exactly what was done with that, whether she carried out the apparent intention or the stated purpose at the outset to donated to charity. Fish a lot we dont know their, but thats an example of something that could be more significant or the other things were talking about are not things for which anyone in this room could credibly maintain is the stuff of impeachment and removal. So look, ive got colleagues on this committee of the democratic side to like to talk a lot about dark money. Dark money on the right. But let me tell you little bit about how liberal dark money is finding these activist pieces underlying this legislation and the perceived need for it on the left. These activist hit pieces written by propublic, also funding for activist groups calling for Court Packing, and supporting this legislation openly, actively, aggressively gunning for it appeared this is the same propublic it that publishes hit pieces on Justice Thomas and on Justice Alito while some turning a blind eye to other conduct from those justices appointed by democrats. Even and especially 1 million award given to a democratically appointed justice. This chart details some of this about the Sandler Foundation launched by propublic the Sandler Foundation rather launched pro publica or and remains pro publica does largest donor. Now, the Sandler Foundation also funds the Campaign Legal center and the american constitution society, known in theio industry as a cf both organizations publicly called for the investigation of Justice Thomas shortly after pro publica as hit piece on Justice Thomas. These hit pieces cited experts from the Campaign Legal center and from acfs. The Sandler Foundation also did money to a new adventure fund, and earmarked for demand justice in which as many in this room know its anz organization that advocates for Court Packing. And as openly and aggressively call for Justice Thomas resignation from the court. The Silicon ValleyCommunity Foundation did money to prorepublican and citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, or crew. Crew sent a letter to Justice Thomas calling on him to resign. The marcello Foundation Also gave money to propel leica and to crew. George Soros Foundation to promote open society has donated to pro publica or, the Campaign Legal center and crew. So william and Flora Hewlett Foundation has given to republican, the Campaign Legal center, the american constitutional study, online for justice and fix the court. And the Ford Foundation has funded the center for popular democracy and the National Womens law center both organizations call for Supreme Court reform based on trade for reporting. Winding back for just a moment. The whirlwind quote. What was that whirlwind . What was truck schumer saying on the Supreme Court, of the un he stood on the steps of the court, will unleash the whirlwind, you wontir know what he is. I think you just said corset and kavanaugh leaving out the title. What was it . Was the whirlwind who traveled great distances and arrived at night outside the home of Justice Kevin to kill just as kavanaugh, was at the whirlwind . Was a whirlwind blatant refusal to enforce 1507 against those terrorizing, sometimes daily, often weekly or another semi regular basis . The families of Supreme Courtt justice protesting outside the home allowing protest to take place andts refusing to enforce federal law that makes it unlawful to do that at the Supreme Court justice. His of the credibility and character in the lifetime to build reputation for themselves reflecting on the court of credibility on fairness . Perhaps that was the whirlwind. This is part of that whirlwind and we mustt defeated. Thank you. She disclosed this and now donating it to charity. Any provisions in the bill applied to every member of the Supreme Court appointed by democrat or republican conservative or liberal. Senator graham, i believe you have the first. I have an amendment going off what senator lee said. Section 1507 of federal code makes it a crime to go to homes of Supreme Court officials or judges to keep them from being intimidatedot. I think all of us on this committee 23892 is the amendment. I remember vividly protesters against my house ander broke a window, not a pleasant experience. Appreciate the capitol hille police helping mee out. A lot of us probably have people come to our homes, uncomfortable and i know we have some members here with small children, got to be a better way. Section 1507 on the book organized and basically Nothing Happened to anybody. You can be sympathetic but we shouldsh enforce the law no matr how we feel about the cause, no matter how you feel what youre doing, i dont want anybody to go to your house and break a window no matter how i feel about your legislative agenda, i dont wanti anybody to threaten you and your family. Thats just not good for the country so this amendment will allow the Supreme CourtPolice Authority to investigate violations of 15 osha Justice Department for some reason basically giving everybody a task and small children having to endure this so the Supreme Court has a police force to protect them with visit jurisdiction but am glad the Supreme Court has its own police force so i would like to have an amendment to allow Supreme Court police to investigate violations of section 1807 to protect the court. Is the moment would add responsibility to the Supreme Court tasking with investigating violations of the federal prohibition rating with the administration of justice and administration of the duties. Security hastr been a constant d we passed legislation to protect the judiciary and theto families including justices of the Supreme Court. Each year the Supreme Court visited by an estimated halfmillion around the world. Supreme court police are responsible for protecting visitors as well as justices and staff. I know how much it would cost in the responsibility of the department of justice and fbi and local Law Enforcement to move that responsibility to the Supreme Court about capability and resources. We can agree securities of the utmost importance but its about an issue that is completely different, protecting reputation of the Supreme Court ensuring justices creating code of conduct. My republican colleagues will join in my concern about the justicesou, it would be refreshg to join in supporting appropriations legislation and tobring security. Fiscal year 2023 gained billions in funding and seven republican members of the committee voted against the bill to provide funding to protect the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to impose this amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I imagine the members of the committee voted against the appropriations bill. Thats what happens at the end of the year they do everything and you cant have a normal process to allow members and the bad spot. I am hoping will go to Appropriations Committee here in a minute and clean up that mess but heres what im saying, the system failed. The System Design to protect justices of the homes fail. Department of justice failed. The people in charge of enforcing the law in my view fails. Imm not taking power away from them, im trying to give power to thend police to protect supre court to investigate intimidation of the court and tihomes. I never thought id have to do that but if you dont see the failure, your blind. The people who came intimidate them and make their life miserable and have lost in the book preventing the. Nobody has been held accountable so lets allow Police Department who has direct authority over the production of Supreme Court to investigate and if they need more money to hire investigators, im sure we can find a way to do that so given the power to investigate intimidation justices in their homes somehow makes it less safe makes no, sense and the reason i am doing this, the system failed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to vote no, the amendment on the issue of Supreme Court addressed in this bill would give the Supreme Court believe the authority to investigate federal crime under the jurisdiction of the u. S. Department of justice which could create jurisdictional concerns. The Justice Department and fbi have responsibility i for investigating these crimes. Thank you, senator klobuchar. Is determined, i have sympathy for this issue over the fact that we are not doing enough for the bills we have passed. I believe we need to do more. Many people in this room have bad experiences with security. Im going to vote no simply because not what we are focused on today which is ethics of these justices and trying to put rules in place that i wish the court could do themselves. I think we all know this is not the First Time Congress has stepped in to make sure our government officials behave ethically but i am happy to work with colleagues in the future on this issue because i believe we have neglected our owngl securiy as well as others no one does anything when they have their own security and those of us who dont, we get stuck with it. Thank you. I hoped to just make a comment about the bill but i will do it in the context of this amendment if thats okay and ill bel brief. I listen carefully to important concerns raised about the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers, politicization, those are things of great concern to me full of law matters that i took a poll and i checked with neighbors and i asked, do you think a justice should be required to receive airplane travel and be required to disclose it . They looked at me like it was the weirdest theyve never heard and they didnt answer it fast me. They said they can do that . Fiercely . I didnt have an answer for that so the heart of the bill is about disclosing the vast majority of the people represent, all of us think should not be done in the first place so disclosure is bare minimum and that has to apply to anybody as judge appointed by trump, by biden, everybody should have theat obligation so this is like the minimum and it has in my view, very important implications to try to restore credibility to Supreme Court not held in high regard and its a disappointment to see the failure of the chief justice not act and put this in the court of this Senate Judiciary committee. I yield back. Senatorn walsh i think it was march, april of this year of the Supreme Court dealt with thisis issue and required disclosures of trips from private planes and etc. Theyve already done. Sil 23892 clerk, call the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is not agreed to. We have 61 amendments i know of so we can do it anyway you would like and you people can be recognized but i do believe every moment deserves to be debated and voted on. If i can be recognized. I would like to call a might amendment 00023707. This would extend the right to carry a firearm so they can protect themselves. Many of us in texas and here in d. C. In the process of a firearms license because im concerned the increasing crime and threats against Public Officials that they need to be in a a position to defend themselves should they choose to do so. We have talked about the highprofile threats and attempted attacks against dresses, theres a recent retirement in Wisconsin State Court judge across the country reporting more and more threats of violence against them and you should be able to protect themselves anytime anywhere in my amendment would allow those who choose to do so by Law Enforcement. Travel or run errands i urge my colleagues to support the amendment state and local law, i dont know something to attempt from state andnd local . The jamaica under federal law of the state and local level voluntary by the judge theyve been raised a whole life to do so safely and store them appropriately, if we trust them with the constitution, we should trustt them. Permits them apply, nothing. I dont know if this is state requirement, each has a requirement but i certainly wonder why would you take this up. The United States senate and others, he pointed out appropriately so we have free spot of relational resources for the members of the court and i asked senator lee because i wasnt sure that was the case but there are details available to the justices now but historically thats not been true. Theyve requested provide assistance but the premise that the Supreme Court like many other Public Officials are subject toar cracks and potentil attacks against families and will think is. Is a moment of her 65 by public and colleagues which has nothing to do with code of ethics of the Supreme Court so now its an amendment that would allow judges to carry guns, what does it have to do with code of ethics of the Supreme Court . I have to say listening to my republicani colleagues aligning with what we are attempting to do something as i thought as common as this requiring the Supreme Court to abide by code of ethics as others abide by, what is so hard to understand about that . In the meantime as the other is a how to do with our code of ethics the branch behavior and members of the Judiciary Committee, auto what that has to doth with the bill before us son addition to what ive already said, it is not productive to question the motives those in the highest court of the land should be setting an example in terms of abiding by code of ethics as we do not often see sitting judges laying in to have a code of ethics so i like to ask unanimous consent for this article in the newe york times n 2023 and says does the Supreme Court realized this . In various disclosures airplane travel, tuition and to Supreme Court justices so the end of this he says although the numbers fluctuate, it comprises roughly 540 charges and 180 Appeals Court judges and non Supreme Court justices fewer than 500 men and women in the country more than 330 Million People and 3. 8 million square miles and much depends on this cohort accurate sense of smell in his uncompromising integrity and appearance. So i will vote against this and other amendments that have nothing to do with what is before us which is code of ethics for the Supreme Court. The article referred to will be entered into the record. I respond to my colleagues fromom hawaii and what we are trying to say motives are what you said, we are putting this in context of a broader picture. The majority leader of the United States senate went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened as much as you can threaten someone, theres an effort on your side to expand the Supreme Court to do away with the conservative majority so there is a pattern here trying to diminish, demonize and i dont know if youve read the bill you are supporting but the bill is an assault of how the court operates. It would make it very easy to make an allegation of conflict of interest and have a panel of judges decide the merits. It changes the system and at the end of the day it is a remaking of the court designed to dilute the power of the Supreme Court for political purpose and it cant be viewed in isolation. Justice ginsburg, a lot of americans including me, she got 1 million, im not suggesting she took the money, ia think she gave it away but wont tell us who she gave it away to and they still wont. Virginia miller answered about going to school, she signed a copy of the opinion auctioned off by the Legal Defense fund. All i am saying and the court travels everywhere, i have not board the committee with travel schedule of the justices during the summer and i dont begrudge them for doing that. The bottom line is i am not begrudging that, you are trying to destroy this court and this is part of a process so we view this in a broader context. These are americans wash on television and organized effort to go to Supreme Court justices homes to the desired purpose of ruining their lives, intimidating to families and not a thing was done about it. That is relevant. Whether judge carry a gun or not, if they want to, they should. The bottom line, this ist relevant and we will look at this in a broader perspective and that perspective is pretty well. Concerted effort going on for years to marginalize this court. I like to say anybody spending decades on the Supreme Court withh people, i would say it is supporting this. Again i say we are with the onSupreme Court, the recusal for example, they get to decide individually whether or not thy choose that themselves. How do you have a Supreme Court justice that does not recuse himself when his wife is involved in the very issues before him . I was hit with those examples raises the question, why shouldnt the Supreme Court have a code of ethics is the code of ethics apply . We have a code of ethics in the senate. Why shouldnt the Supreme Court, when you talk about intimidating the court,t how do you intimidae the court that decides cases and reverses cases decades long and theres nothing we can do . The constant refrain in my view is not very compelling. What is compelling is the need for aer code of ethics. I would direct the center of hawaii on the website which has a code of conduct for u. S. Judges who said they dont have a code of conduct and they need one so congress impose that on them, that is factually incorrect. What is the relevance providing judge opportunity to defend themselves in the family . What is the relevant to the longstanding campaign of intimidation and harassment of recently rising to the majority leader training members of the court finding . What is the relevance of selfdefense to that . Its because they are unstable mind other when they see Public Officials accusing members of the court of wrongful conduct, they will respond to that. Thank goodness in the case of justice capital, Law Enforcement was able to go in on those who are intending to kill him. They have the right to defend themselves if others are not available as directly related to the campaign of intimidation and attempt to politicize the court. They make that decision, thats how its always has worked in should work. Its no different in that regard in the u. S. Senate and we also have a decision whether to refute. The difference is legal expectation requirements that we do so. They do have one. Questions on the adoption ol of 23707, clerk callable. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] mr. Chairman . I would like to call up amendment to 3875. Please explain amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Th this deals with the week of the dobbs opinion. To so many tennesseans, sounds a little face of the court. Confidentiality and trust of the court, something talked about, how important it is to deliver the process just as thomas said when you lose the trust changes the institution fundamentally and that leak put a spotlight on the efforts of some from the left to push forward their agenda and they went so far to accuse Justice Alito of making the draft. The American People knew that was unlikely and it didnt just harm Public Confidence, it literally made the justices target, a target of assassination, children became targets. No member of the u. S. Senate should be okay with that type of targeting. This amendment is simple. Since it seems my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are intent on pushing through this effort to did to legitimize the Supreme Court, my amendment and delays the implementation of the bill until it is identified and publicly disclosed. This ought not to be a hard boat. Even yourself in january you sent the leak is an unacceptable breach of the Supreme Court confidentiality and trust. We will vote yes on the summit. The Supreme Courtl ethics recusal transparency on which the person who leaked the draft decision and stopsd identify and publicly disclosed, i hope we can agree the leak of the majority draft opinion was unprecedented and indefensible breach of Supreme Court confidential. However, i amde disappointed the Supreme Courts own investigation by the chief justicega roberts and breach failed to uncover the source of the leak. I am especially disappointed the investigation did not include sworn interviews with justices themselves and have gone to every possible person of asking for sworn statements of the justices themselves. The situation saying justices in the statements can withhold the statements whether implicated or not resolved the source and as long as is the case, note no code of ethics. It makes perfect sense we would withhold this until i come forward with the information. Is this something we want to know . Is something the American People want to know so we should hold this bill even if its signed into law, it would not be implemented until we find out who is the leaker and until that issue is resolved. The adoption of the blackburn amendment sil 23875. Excuse me, no. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the moment does not agree to. I would call a amendment is a i owe 23885 sil 23885. This would condemn raises things said about justice Clarence Thomas. Anyone seek recognition on this amendment . Is it safe to say the you condemn all raises comments and attacks on all justices . You would not include the others . On [inaudible] [screaming] if the senator would agree to the amendment, i think we can accept it you have to change it, you say . When you are talking about simply saying condemn racism against any justice but will only put one justice in . I dontt. Understand to accept e fact that justice Clarence Thomas who happens to bepp a blk man has been at the front of racist statements and i dont understand to condemn those and thats what my amendment does. I will water it down, i dont want to bubblewrap it, i want to sugarcoat it. I want to say the United StatesSenate Condemns these raises things said about justice Clarence Thomas. If somebody wants to offer another amendment to condemn every racist thing ever said, i will vote for it but this one is about Clarence Thomas and i will support going to justice by justice all of whom anybody whos ever served on the Supreme Court. This one i think ought to go on record. Will senator kennedy yield for question . Yes. Im reading your amendment which i think is wellcrafted, one thing you cite is july 13, a few days ago 2023, Minnesota Attorney general disgustingly likened Justice Thomas to a house life from the film jango unchanged. Other any other of the nine justices who have been subject to racist attack the last few days sitting democrat in the state of minnesota who if anyone else has been subject to those attacks as brazenly and unapologetically . No, sir and it would be unconscionable for this committee not to condemn that kind of rhetoric for Clarence Thomas. Despite centers view of the bill, i consider this not relevant and it specifically requests the Biden Administration to inject itself politically into a Law Enforcement decision the Biden Administration has avoided getting so i urge my colleagues to vote no. Any further discussion . Are you going to offer a Second Degree then . Senator kennedy. How can you not condemn a statement calling justice Clarence Thomas a house slave . , folks. But all the amendment does. Does anybody here support that rhetoric . I dont think you do. This rhetoric on john roberts. I dont care how many lawyers have. It is not complicated. You had to be a senior to figure it out. This is all of the stuff about Clarence Thomas calling him a house slave another racist discussing statements wes condemn. You either condemn it or you dont and thats what the amendment does. If i respond, i do condemn that rhetoric but the sanders amendment is more than that, i called on the Biden Administration to enforce section 1507 from title 18 code the justice including Justice Thomas and violations of the law designed to intimidate justices and a lot of time was spent to assure the white house and political side is kept out of internal department of fish Law Enforcement decision and i asked my colleagues to vote no unless there is a seconddegree amendment that clears that. I respect my colleague and hes better at counting this this is a simple amendment. If you support racist things said about Clarence Thomas, then vote against this amendment. If you think the things that have beenn said about Clarence Thomas r racist and condemn them then vote for the amendment. As a but the minute wholeheartedly find it difficult to understand how someone could oppose amendment whose sole purpose is to condemn racist slurs usedd repeatedly, publicly and viciously against one Supreme Court justice. Yes, other things have been said about other justices, thats true. Other things have been said about other justices on both sides of the aisle. Justice thomas unique and to my knowledge, only current member of the court was attacked racially, even in supposedly polite society. Attacks like news personality using this so i find it difficult to understand why would object sending that message. Very difficult to understand why someone would oppose this. Nothing objectionable about wanting to weigh in and say these things shouldnt happen, they should be retracted and never should occur again. Based on additional facts that this amendment the Biden Administration to enforce section 1507. The same verbal attacks culminate in, lead to and encourage groups, the kinds of activities outside of justices homes that lead them in a vulnerable position with their personal safety andrs security being threatened and violated. Theres nothing that says exactly what enforcement action has to takeio place at exactly what location in what moment. Theres nothing in this that doesnt take away a degree of discretion on the part of Law Enforcement officers but this is not being enforced at the homes of justices. We know its not, we know it is deliberate because of the leaked memorandum of katie from alabama who received them from a whistleblower. We know they are being constructed. Back to enforce this in the homes. To arguments offered. The first argument is maybe there have been racist things against other justices. I will say objectively the bigotry directed at Clarence Thomas is different from any of the other eightly justices. This gives multiple instances of elected democrats currently in office launching thats what impunity. Bennie thompson and mississippi democrat member of Congress CalledJustice Thomas quote uncle tom. It citeses how a week ago the Minnesota Attorney general,ta another democrat Keith Ellison disgustingly likened him to a house slave in the house slave of a particularly loathsome character from the movie. If the chairman wishes to show any elected officials using racial epithets 28 justices, i will happily condemn them. Im not aware of any. Might there be some lunatic on twitter who said something, sure. There are idiots on twitter but these are not french characters. This is a senior democrat in the house ofe representatives refuss to apologize. This is the current attorney general in the state of minnesota so everyone should understand, i expect axp partyle vote, i expect the democrats to say no. Understand, everyone watching this will interpret that to say you agree these racial insults of Justice Thomas are acceptable. Justice kennedy said he assumed democrats to mount these statements, i have to say that havent heard members of the Committee Denounce what Keith Ellison said. I have not heard anyone retract and apologize. Democrat attorney general in minnesota, i havent heard a word about the. The second argument was the argument given by senator whitehouse and he says the part that is offensive on the department of justice to enforce the law. Just stop and repeat that again. It is nowbl the position is unethical to ask to enforce the law. Section 1507 weeks of federal crime to protest the purpose of intimidating them. In this refuses to enforce the law made by democrats right now and it wontce prosecute criminals trying to intimidate and what Supreme Court justices because the Biden Administration support that criminal threatening. The reason Judiciary Committee democrats are being told on this bill is because Senate Democrats on the Committee Report the violent threatening of justices. This is not about ethics, its about double standard applied justices with a whom democrats disagree and its designed to delegitimize the court, applying rules that are not apply to liberal justices like Stephen Breyer and ruth better ginsberg and virtually identical to that of Justice Thomas and others. The democrats on this committee are matt of the Supreme Court because of decisions inconvenient and if they have the boat know, understand your telling constituents you think it isco fine to Supreme Court justice say how late you cant say it is beyond the line. Would you read one more time for the record that statement about Justice Thomas and who made it . July 13, 2023, he ellison, currently sitting attorney general offensively likened Justice Thomas to a house slave from the film jangle. There is a long pattern april 27, 42014 Bennie Thompson of mississippi, another sitting member of congress. I was a recently 2023 Georgia State senator Emmanuel Jones is similar language to characterize Justice Thomas including calling him uncleas tom. Do you think it is all right . To call it justice who cares disagree and are complex i think it is bigoted that perhaps democrats hold them to a different standard. Any time of any source. We have had members of the United States senate apologize publicly involving the issue of race should not compromise, integrity regardless of whether they are democrat or republican Supreme Court justice or not. So i will propose an amendment which will capsulized on this. Page three, line 13 to insert after the work against any current or former justice including and preserves the rest of the language in page four paragraph five in its entirety and i offer as an amendment and it is an amendment before the committee. The Second Degree amendment, he would strike the name of Clarence Thomas . It includes every word any current or former Supreme Court justice so there is no other change. Will determine consider making those separately . To vote in favor of the Second Amendment striking the paragraph on the department of justice to enforce federal criminal law, i could not vote for it but if you wrote it up simply, id be happy to vote first. Are there any other comments or questions . If not then first second agreement will be as follows. Page three line 13 to insert any current or former Supreme Court justice including on the rest of the amendment. Does it mention Justice Thomas by name . Your amendment is completely. But does your amendment . It says including justicece thomas and those likening him so i dont believe any words from your amendment related to Justice Thomas. Can we do this by voice vote . Yes or no . Okay. All in favor on the Second Degree amendment as described say i. The post, no. The Second Degree amendment is agreed to. The second strikes on page four all of section five. I know that is not one we will get bipartisan agreement on so i suggest we call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] dear god yes. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is agreed to. Any further amendments . If not, call control on the kennedy amendment as amended. Without objection, the clerk will call the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is agreed to. Senator lee. Id like to call up my amendment sil 23890. This amendment is pretty simple. It creates new federal crime from leaking confidential work product. Unauthorized person. A crime punishable by a grant of up to 10000 and up to ten years prison. The amendment allows for the criminal forfeiture all proceeds from having engaged in this kind of noumenal behavior and its important that we take care of this. As we saw with the draft of the dobbs opinion, leaked draft opinions its hard for me to speak in the plural because never in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States has this occurred at least in this way prior to the dobbs case. Part of the dobbs case, there are a handful of cases inre whih rumors leaked out of the court, suggesting a particular case was going to be decided this way or that. Right in most cases. In most cases you are looking more or less as a binary result. There is a number of combinations that support with a majority might look like, ultimate disposition by the court. Its really gonna come down to a form of reverse. What have been the dobbs case was so different and a complete offensive draft opinion of the court would like to the press. This did not occur in the abstract, its part of the whirlwind. Part of what hit them. Without them even knowing part of the wh designed to threaten andre intimidatete and encourage those that may have had at the moment inclination to support the draft. Unfortunately it did not affect the disposition of the case. Drawing shame, ridicule and attention. Reasonably calculated to bring people to the homes of these justices to try to bring further these things are ripe with opportunities for potential violence. We cannot accept this until at the time it happened it was not clear that this was adequately taken into account. Laws were broken in connection with their spirit almost certainly. Difficult to assess it without knowing who did it. There was not investigation taken place. I think they will have to answer that. We need to make it clear that this is a crime. Before i recognize, let me comment on the amendment itself. They have sincere belief to whatever discloses some damn liberal that is trying to upset the dobbs decision. The opposite is argued. It musttr be a position of the Court Justices who had committed tomm his decision that he wanted to get it done as quickly as possible. I dont know who is right on the assertion. I do know this. Ordered by the Supreme Court justice of the court itself. The department of justice we have a different point of view. It is relevant both for us. It is not about the integrity of its coordinates own dealings within the corporate rather a reputation with the rest of the world and american voters. First question to senator lee potentially more likely investigate the unitedni states Supreme Court. It is itself enforced by the United States department of justice. That does not mean that in every instance outside Law Enforcement wouldld be free to o in and braid the court. In circumstances where they believe they know who did it or concern is senator lee knows when you begin a criminal investigation, you do not always know who did it. Sometimes you do. We need to have a criminal offense on the books. Contrary to what the chairman said, this is not groundbreaking it closely mirrors something we have for a man analogous relating to classified information. The security secret sort. Let me just second what the chair said. I was outraged by the league as senator lee was as a law clerk. Both of us i think we respected the rules of confidentiality. I think that we question the department of interrogating, literally interrogating the United StatesSupreme Court. It would almost certainly invite this. Let me just say this. I think we have we have both been law clerks without a number of cases. I think you get what is happening inin this debate is further degrading and detracting from the credibility and the Supreme Court. They just refer to, and i am quoting justices on both sides of the aisle. They are now seeing the United Stateses Supreme Court. That is with the court. The chief justice could diffuse this debate and address this problem by coming forward on behalf of the court and his failure to do so is in fact the reason we are here today. We are not talking about justice on one side or the other. We are not talking about appointees of republicans or democrats. Both republican and democratic appointees are responsible for ethical breaches that bring us here today. I continue to urge the chief justice of the United States to demonstrate the leadership that would help save the court in this very significant institution. I appreciate senator blumenthal bringing it to my attention. I was referring to justices that had been appointed by president s on both sides of the island both parties. Apparently from your quote i must have watched that in one instance. By virtue we have it. If i misstated that, that was a mistake and thank you for pointing that out. Your suggestion is it is not relevant which is a standard and the committee. Relevant to the topic we are talking about. First of all, you are correct in pointing out that we do not want outside Law Enforcement just barging into the Supreme Court. And investigating within the court itself. Nonetheless, everyone understands, everyone understood if they undertook the investigation that they did not go far enough but had they obtained information that was capable of identifying the person whoif undertook these activities, i have no doubt and i dont think anyone has any doubt and allowing the department of justice to take it from there. Making a decision ultimately whether to pursue charges through a grand jury. That did not happen. Separation of powers is legitimate. It does not mean that the statute is not necessary and it would not be helpful, it. It is significant to raise the concerns here in light of the very significant separation of power concerns raised by the under allowing legislation. We are a coordinate branch. We have to tread very lightly here lest we undo the judicial nindependence. The hallmark of the position. I do not agree with the criticisms on this bill. Who did it, mr. Chairman, we dont know if it is true. Not a chance in hell. Ive known the guy for more than 25 years. Not in his character, nature, not a single thing about him about simple logic that would suggest that it is him. Regardless, regardless, whoever did leak the opinion, we all know who that person is, i am absolutely certain that is not him. We still need a statute that takes care of this problem. I am to no. I just want to give the reason. I am advised and believe that the amendment present significant First Amendment concerns in the bidding speech. Especially of journalists. Who publish leaks from the Supreme Court which may be one of the significant public interest. Facing improvement among the amendment. The questions on the adoption [roll call vote] [roll call vote] the thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to call up amendment number four. I welcome the discussion of Ethics Reform. What i noticed is this body has a habitr of prescribing the ruls and standards for other people and then not looking to its own problems whether its obamacare or you all follow these rules, Something Different for us or whether its happening right now we are, for instance, in the last congress one in Seven Members oft the house and senate violated current laws on the books the stock act by failing to report their stock trades accurately. Neither traded on companies that were directly affected by the committees they sit on. More than five officials currently hold stock in companies that they were supposed to be regulating and there has been a series of reports about the department of energy in particular where a huge number, two thirds or more, aat huge number of senior officials in the department of energy currently own stock in trade actively in companies that doe has direct oversight of. That includes the secretary of energy. That includes a congress under oath if she had no individual stock. It turns out she did have stock it was trading that stock and it includes companies that doe has direct oversight of. Americans are surprised at some of the ethics requirements that are or are not in place at the u. S. Supremeur court. This is when i talk to people at home about members of this body owning and training untrained trading in individual stock or members of the executive branch, people are shocked that it is even legal. My proposal is a simple one. If we talk about Ethics Reform, make sure we are talking about that as well. I am proposing to amend this bill before us to include a ban on Stock Ownership and training for members of congress. We have introduced it as a standalone bill. Converted it hereto and amendment. Across the board Ethics Reform and would make this uniform and we would be addressing what is real and pressing our own body andur our own house as well as the executive branch. I asked for a roll call vote. This h seeks to prevent membs of the congress and officials from owning certain securities and investments while they serve in those positions. We should have a conversation around legislationo to ensure members are not engaged in insider trading. This is an important subject that they should and can address and i will join in that debate. Unlike congress and the executive branch the supreme bocourt is not bound by any ethical code of conduct. That is why we are focusing on it today turning our attention elsewhere is a distraction and i will oppose the amendment. Anyone else seek recognition . The clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] mr. Chairman. I would like to be recorded as an eye on this vote, please. Senator. I was not briefed on this so i will vote no for now but i will look at it later on. Thank you. Just very big concerns about ethics in this place right now. The amendment is not agreed to. The question before us is the cotton amendment. Please designate. Amendment see oh t 237813. Mr. Chair, any person can read and report on the opinions of the Supreme Court. They are published online within moments of being issued. They also confer special privileges on journalists with two in the courtroom. A desk in the Court Building itself access to the court after hours and information not provided to the public. We are really concerned about transparency in our court system. Public need to know abot the conflict of interest of thosesi that have special access at the core. My amendment would require that to be recognized by the Supreme Court as press reporters and Media Outlets must meet two conditions. First, they have to make publicly available a list of their funders so we know what special interest or political causes are betting their own personnel literally within the Supreme Court building itself. Second, they must certify under oath that they will not disclose any information about internal draft opinion. Helping league the Public Confidence on our legal system. You should do so without special hours access. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you. Trying to locate your amendment. A 13. Is that correct . Correct. I will oppose this amendment and i would like to explain why. His focus is on the court are simply doing their jobs slated to maintain convention, confidentiality and its opinions. Too often we love Supreme Court to get away with misconduct that would not be allowed to get away at the government. They play by their own set of rules. They are bound by law. This amendment would continue their pattern and produce public disclosure. They would not achieve the purpose of the bill and strike freedom of t the press. I urge my colleagues to oppose a. Anyone else seeking recognition . The clerk will call the roll on amendment see out to 313. [inaudible] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] the amendment is not agreed to. Agreed too by senator cruz and i will return senator the gavel. I would like to spell out. Consisting of one sentence. The Supreme Court of the United States shouldd be opposed of nie justices. There has been considerable debate about the efforts of the radical left and Democratic Party to pack the United StatesSupreme Court. To add for leftwing justices immediately to the court to grow the number from nine13 because democrats areth unhappy with the decisions being issued by the Supreme Court. Undermining the rule of law was true then and it is true now. They do not support pack in the Supreme Court. This is amendment to go on record and be clear about whether or not you support pack in the court. The constitution does not stipulate the numberr of Supreme Court justices. Honoring the makeup of the court the number of justices has changed sixme times before we landed on the number nine of 1869. Only one living senator who has change the size of the Supreme Court and that is senator Mitch Mcconnell of kentucky who shrink the court to eight seats for nearly one year and for purely political reasons so he can refuse the nomination by president obama. Republicans engaged in Court Packing plain and simple when they refusede to consider then nomination in 2016 and then hurried through justice nomination in 2020 my republican colleagues routinely trying to forget and ignore this history. Republicans insistence now that the Supreme Court must remain at nine seats and the hysteria over your democrats even discussing a change does not square with the account i just gave you. This amendment is unrelated to the bill before us in the very rreal need to ensure the court has pute in place a code of conduct i will therefore oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman. Senator cruz. It is true that congress has the authority to change the number of justices on the court. The last time they exercise that authority was in 1869 just after the civil war. It has been a long time that we have had nine justices. That is why when fdr tried to pack the court, even democrats said this was an abuse of power. It is an interesting commentary that in the 1930s democrats in congress recognized that packing the court would do real damage to the rule of law to the constitution. Today, democrats no longer believe that. The chairman tries to engage in wordplay by saying the senate exercising advicee and consent s somehow packing the court. It is true that when president obama nominated garland the majority of the Supreme Court made the decision not to confirm him. That is not packing the court, that is exercising the Constitutional Authority of the senate. They allow the voters to make a decision. At the justice passed away in february in the election year. That history had been true for eight decades that when a vacancy occurred and the senate did not fill that vacancy. Senate democrats wish Hillary Clinton had one instead of donald trump. At iss not in fact what happene. Packing the Supreme Court means one very specific thing. Adding additional seats to change the balance of power because you are unhappy on how the Supreme Courts ruling. It is directly interfering and it is profoundly dangerous, i have to say it is sad but it will be revealing, the next time a democrat goes on the trail and says no we will not pack the court, just remember what you are about to see which is every democrat voting against the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices because todays democrats it is partisanship above all else including the rule of law. This bill reflects that and a willingness of democrats to try to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, but the willingness to pack the court shows just how radicalized todays democrats have become. Just one second. Perhaps the senator from texas recalls the meeting of the subcommittee on oversight which you accuse to call for the need to rein in additional tyranny. Over this decision. The Marriage Equality you are about to propose a constitutional amendment that would up and article three of ad subject justices to periodic retention elections. The sacred number was not honored during the month of 2016 because it was the last year of obamas presidency. Unpacking the court by senator oconnell with the express purpose of a political result. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Like so many of us in our amendment today, this is not related to the bill at hand. I would note that we are here te ethics mass that has taken place at the Supreme Court. We certainly know that a lot of improper things have happened. And have not been disclosed. I think the multiple funded private jet flights to various places are pretty selfexplanatory as inappropriate and excuses being made to try to justify that. Frankly what other judges were tolerated in a courtroom. Until we know what the true depth is of the problem of the court, it is impossible to know what the appropriate responses. So, i have not spoken out in favor of adding a number to the court. But i do not think that we should foreclose that inanimate here because we do not know yet what the whole story here is. We have h a lot of investigative work to do to get to the bottom of it. We saw another important article come out just this morning about the nexus between leonard leo and his groups and his billionaires who fund him and one of the justices at the Supreme Court that just keeps getting worse. I would urge a no vote on this amendment. I believe that we have a quorum to vote. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] the amendment is not agreed to. If they are no more amendments we will vote on final passage. Favorably reporting. Loading favorably on the bill mr. Chairman. Senator whitehouse. I would like to make a few points as we wrap this up. The first is i would react to the comments that some want to pack the court. My senses the court has already been packed. It is been packed as a result ran by a handful of secretive rightwing billionaires. Through a bunch of front groups. The tallys. Of the information s risen from the estimate at the Washington Post and now 580 million spent on trying to make sure it is in room. A long effort to make this a conservative court. The question of whether or not it is appropriate for Lower Court Judges to stand in some degree of judgment over the administrative question of whether or not there is a compliance with rules is actually the current state of the judiciary. That is the way that it works right now. Objecting to that is objecting to present reality. Let me start by pointing out that there are two sides to a judges job one is a judicial side and the other is administrative side which includes the ethics part of a judges job. You have a clue which role the judges playing if they are wearing a robe. If not, it is very likely the administrative side of their work. In the administrative side where the ethicson questions are handd , those determinations go to the judicial conference. That is the same body that i mentioned earlier that is established by congress and implements passed by congress and the recusal laws passed by congress. It is made up essentially entirely of Lower Court Judges. One justice sits on it, the chief justice. Questions of the justices are sent there now. We have seen it happen. In the first round to Clarence Thomas for the travel disclosures back in 2011. The two Financial Disclosure committee. It is composed entirely of Lower Court Judges. Circuit chief justice and district chief justice. That is who resolved the matter of that first round to Clarence Thomas and the second round right now that the judicial conference was again sent to the Financial Disclosure committee. Again made up entirely of Lower Court Judges. So the objection that they would make a determination about whether justicesyi have complied for instance with Financial Disclosure rules that is the present state. The other question that went before them recently was this question of Justice Scalia maneuver, if you want to call it that of reading a personal invitation from a resort owner with whom he had no personal relationship. As a matter of personal hospitality. When that question went back for determination, it went back to the judicial conference. It was the judicial conference made upo of lower Court Justices that said, no, that does not fly, that is not legal, it is not what the personal disclosure will permit. Thank you for giving me a chance to make that record. I dont know if im holding up a vote at this point. No, not yet . Okay. We are still waiting for people to come back from the voting. There are a lot of canards that are flying around in all of this Lower Court Judges cannot make decisions about the administrative side, the ethics piece of Supreme Court justices behavior is simply belied by the fact it has happened exactly that way over and over and over again. And without objection. Without objection. When Justice Thomas first round ofof secret yacht gifts from harlan crow was referred to the Financial Disclosure committee, he did not say, wait a minute, you cannot send that to that body, they are all Lower Court Judges. He went along with it. And those Supreme Court justices have been ever compliant about Lower Court Judges to the judicial conference exercising their judgment about administrative financial and ethics matters. So, that just aint so. And the argument that we are up against a pack against the judiciary and this violates separation of powers, again is belied by the acts of the justices themselves. Judicial conference existed for decades. The court knows that it exists because the Supreme Court chief justice chairs a. They have never objected to that being an intrusion into separation of powers because it was established by congress. The Financial Disclosure rules are congress established. Againn, when the matter about te first round of harlan crow to Justice Thomas secret yacht and jet travel gifts was sent to the judicial conference, nobody said, you cannot send it there because it violates separation of powers. They did not say you cannot do it because it is Lower Court Judges and they did not say you cannot do it because it is separation of powers and that is because both of those arguments are completely false. There are ways to solve this problem that works squarely within the constitutional principle separation of powers. As one of my republican colleague said today, there is also the question of checks and balances. In that we have to allow power to checkr power. Allowing congress the power to check abuses in the Judicial Branch is a long established and proven fact that the Supreme Court has for decades gone along with without complaint. Even when and perhaps particularly when it involved justices themselves. And indeed after the judicial conference said nope, you cannot state personal hospitality if it ise a corporate venue, you can update personal hospitality just because it is a personal invitation, you cannot take personal hospitality if there is not a real and longstanding personal relationship. When they said that, they were exercising powers given to them by congress. There was no objection to that from the Supreme Court. Thomas put out a rare statement saying he would abide by that. He did not say that is unconstitutional. Hesa did not say lower judges should not do that. He said, yep, i will follow that new rule. Favorably reporting the Supreme Court ethics recusal and Transparency Act. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] the bill will be favorably reported. No further business to come before the committee. We stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] cspan is your unfiltered view of government. Funded by these Television Companies and more including comcast. It is way more than that. Comcast is partnering with 1000 Community Centers to create wifi enabled listen so students from low income families can get the tools they need to beeady for anything. Comcast support cspan is a Public Service along with these other Television Providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. Tuesday. A hearing on how to regulate Artificial Intelligence technology. Live at 3 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan three. Cspan now our free mobile video app or online at cspan. Org. Healthy democracy does not just look like this. It looks like this. Where americans can see democracy at work. A republic thrived. It informed straight from the sources. Unfiltered, unbiased word for word. The Nations Capital to wherever you are. Its the opinion that matters the most. This is what democracy looks like. Cspan, powered by cable. Superintendent from various military academies testified on their admissions process and curriculum before the house armed subcommittee before military personnel. They discussed the role of standardized testing in the importance of diversity on the heels of the Supreme Courts decision to end affirmative action at public universities and colleges