Floor Statements

Mr. President, if you watch television, you are hearing a lot of reports from Nigeria about kidnappings and murders, other reports of violence, and particularly you are hearing it about Christians in Nigeria.

This violence has grown more frequent and more troubling as time goes on. The enforcement of blasphemy laws by the Nigerian Government coupled with the rise of violent attacks by terrorists against religious communities represents a serious infringement upon the freedom of religion that you are supposed to have in that country.

Blasphemy laws are enforced in 12 Nigerian states and also at the Federal level. That enforcement is resulting in the prosecution and imprisonment of Christians, Muslims, traditional practitioners, and even humanists. Furthermore, violence by terrorists like Boko Haram and the other organization called the Islamic State West Africa Province continues to pose serious security challenges.

Unfortunately, these challenges are not new developments. For years, we have been hearing from our own government Agencies, particularly the FBI and the Department of Justice, urging our own State Department to designate the terrorist group Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, a step that was delayed until 2013.

For my part, I have consistently sought information and action to address this ongoing threat. Going way back almost 10 years in 2016, I sent a letter to then-U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting information regarding the yearslong process of designating the Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization.

In 2020, I wrote to then-Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Sam Brownback asking what steps were being taken to protect Christians in Nigeria and whether a Special Envoy might be appointed.

At that time, the Department assured me that they were actively addressing the issue at multiple levels with the Nigerian Government, but now, years later, we continue to see concerning reports about violence and religious prosecution in Nigeria.

That is why I was so very happy to see our own President Trump take long-awaited action in designating Nigeria a country of particular concern. That designation puts Nigeria on a watch list, puts Nigeria on notice that if they don't take care of this situation, other things can intervene.

The Nigerian Government must take immediate action to end this violence, and the United States should do all it can to support and encourage those efforts. Once again, I am proud to see President Trump on television, at his news conferences and things like that, speaking up for the Nigerian Government to take action and supporting the plight of Christians in Nigeria.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, two members of the West Virginia National Guard were tragically shot here, while on duty, in Washington, DC. They were attacked by an Afghan national, brought here under the Biden administration. Sadly, Specialist Beckstrom has passed away, and Staff Sergeant Wolfe continues to fight for his life.

May God bless both of them. Our prayers and mine are with them and their families.

Mr. President, also last week, an Afghan evacuee was arrested for threatening to bomb a building in Texas. The terrorists entered our country as part of a program called Operation Allies Welcome in the aftermath of the Biden administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Since 2021, I have warned the Biden administration, my congressional allies and colleagues, and the American public about the failure to vet Afghan evacuees. Unfortunately, the Biden administration was not honest with the American people about the program's vetting vulnerabilities.

I asked then-Director Wray about the program's national security, and I asked the same, this year, of Director Patel of the FBI.

This year, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard told my office an important data point: Of the more than 100,000 Afghan evacuees, as of August 2022, 1.6 percent had links to terrorism or other derogatory information. So, when you take that 1.6 percent, that is over 1,600 people who at the time of Biden's disastrous evacuation posed a potential threat to our homeland and to the American people.

On July 8, 2025, I came to the Senate floor and urged the current FBI and the intelligence community leadership to aggressively investigate evacuees. In September of this year, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Noem told my office that, as of August 12, 2025, thousands of Operation Allies Welcome parolees were potential national security threats.

As we have tragically witnessed, the Biden administration's failure to properly vet Afghan evacuees has serious consequences and probably consequences we haven't seen beyond the killing last week.

I think we should thank the Trump administration's efforts--and I thank them--for responding to my oversight requests and their efforts to fix the Biden administration's failures.

This Senator's oversight work will continue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I travel in Iowa throughout the year, I meet some very special people. Last month, in Sheldon, IA, at the high school, I had the honor of meeting Stephanie Pritts, who was recently named Iowa's 2026 ``Teacher of the Year.''

Now, it goes way back to 1958 that Iowa started the ``Teacher of the Year'' award, honoring an exceptional Iowa teacher each year. There is very tough competition each year among Iowa's many outstanding educators to find the one who best represents student learning through evidence-based instruction, empowering students with multiple pathways to postsecondary success; the teacher who learns from and invests in other fellow educators and, at the same time, serves students in partnership with their families.

The annual program is sponsored by the Iowa Department of Education, and it is funded by an appropriation of the Iowa Legislature.

Now that she is 2026 ``Teacher of the Year,'' Stephanie will serve as an ambassador to schools, an ambassador to higher education, and an ambassador to various communities across the State.

I would like to congratulate Stephanie, again, and thank her for her service to our State. Iowans can be very proud that teachers like Stephanie call our State their home.

I visit about 10 to 12 high schools a year to have a Q&A with young people because they never come to my open town meetings. One of the surprises that happens at a high school is meeting Iowa's ``Teacher of the Year.'' This year, that was Stephanie Pritts, and I congratulate her for a second time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, CNH announced its closure of their Burlington, IA, facility in June next year. This plant has been in Burlington since the 1950s and is a mainstay of the Greater Burlington area.

As a result of this closure, more than 200 workers will be losing their jobs. I have received pink slips before--twice in 1960 from Universal Hoist in Cedar Falls and another time in 1971 from Waterloo Register in Cedar Falls, IA. For these 200 workers and everybody else who gets a pink slip, it is a stressful time for families.

My office has been in communication with the local union, the United Auto Workers there. We have also talked to CNH to encourage future investment in Iowa and urged CNH to be sure to take care of their employees as the employees and the company part ways.

I always say if I could put two words on an Iowa license plate to describe our workers, it would be these two words: ``productivity'' and ``quality.''

I want the people of Burlington to know that I will keep fighting for their community in the Halls of Congress during this stressful time.

Judicial Nominations

Mr. President, on another matter, in this Congress, many of my Democratic colleagues have alleged that President Trump nominates historically bad judicial nominees. Along this line, one member of the Judiciary Committee even described President Trump's judicial nominees as ``the most extreme and unqualified judicial nominees ever considered [in] the [U.S.] Senate.''

So are my Democratic colleagues right? Well, based on a recent study by professors at New York University and the University of Virginia, the answer is a resounding no. Their study considered objective and nonpartisan metrics to determine a judge's productivity, a judge's quality, and a judge's independence. The study then compared the results across the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, and the Obama administration.

According to the study, President Trump's judges ``dominate the field.'' In fact, the study found that the top 10 most productive judges were all Trump nominees. And, of course, productivity isn't the only metric where Trump-appointed judges outperformed.

Let's take judicial independence. After all, my Democratic colleagues frequently allege that President Trump only picks loyalists. Surely, this must be where President Biden and President Obama's nominees would surely shine and stand out. The answer is the same: No. Again, they don't stand out. Trump's nominees dominate the field. All of the 10 judges rated on independence were nominated by President Trump.

And that is not all. On the metric of partisanship--meaning whether judges voted in alignment with other judges nominated from the same party--

Trump appointees win again. Eight of the ten least partisan judges were nominated by President Trump.

In short, President Trump has a history of nominating highly qualified jurists to the bench.

Today, the Judiciary Committee voted for a few more out here for us to consider on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am proud to say that under my chairmanship, the Judiciary Committee has and will continue to advance highly qualified nominees to serve the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. One in eighteen people receives a lung cancer diagnosis during their lifetime. Twelve percent of the diagnoses have had no tobacco exposure. This disease impacts hundreds of thousands of families across our country.

My friend Marlys Carlson of Stratford, IA, finished her battle with lung cancer in July of this year and is now with her Lord and Savior. I want to raise awareness for lung cancer in her honor today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a remarkable business and civic leader from my home State who passed away peacefully at age 99 surrounded by his beloved family members.

A World War II veteran, William C. Knapp is an American patriot who piloted landing craft amidst kamikaze attacks during the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific Theater, one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. A member of the ``Greatest Generation,'' he enlisted in the U.S. Navy at age 17, a bold decision that underscored how he would pursue entrepreneurial endeavors for the rest of his life, fueled by humble beginnings, his own ``gut check,'' and strong farm kid work ethic.

Bill's zest for life was shaped by his wartime experience, surviving fierce fighting during the largest amphibian landing of the Pacific theater with heavy death tolls on both sides. The experience left an indelible imprint in his mind and on his heart, compelling him time and again to pay it forward for his fellow veterans. Two decades ago, Bill donated land for the Iowa Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter, providing sacred ground for tens of thousands of burials for Iowa veterans. On Friday, November 21, Bill will be laid to rest with full military honors among other Iowa hometown heroes on the land he donated to honor veterans for generations to come.

Bill's donation of prime real estate is but one example of his generosity and commitment to share his blessings and make a difference. A decades-long philanthropist, Bill underwrote the cost of a Central Iowa Honor Flight to ensure aging Iowa veterans were able to travel to Washington, DC, to see the World War II Memorial built for their service and sacrifice.

Bill leaves behind an iconic footprint on Iowa's landscape, from the skyline of Des Moines to the celebrated Iowa State Fair. With his business acumen and leadership prowess, Bill founded Knapp Properties and scaled Iowa Realty into a financial juggernaut that fueled transformative projects in our State capital.

Although Bill and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, we are both Iowa farm kids who worked hard to make Iowa a better place to live, build a business, raise a family and earn a good living. Partisanship didn't spoil our mutual love for Iowa or stop us from working to improve the lives and livelihoods of our neighbors. I am flattered he even supported me a time or two over the course of my political career.

Bill and I shared a special fondness for the Iowa State Fair. He kept up a larger-than-life tradition every year and parked a big camper at the State fairgrounds for all 10 days, hosting people in the political realm and meeting with Iowans from across the State. As always, his generosity followed his heart. Over the years, he opened his wallet generously and spearheaded fundraising efforts to help make our state fair among the very best in the Nation. Bill contributed to many charitable organizations and institutions, from childcare centers to affordable housing and human services, as well as impactful contributions to Drake University in Des Moines.

Good leaders tend to dream big and those who surround themselves with the best and brightest are able to turn those dreams into reality. Bill was one of those rare people in this world who never met a stranger. From the hotel valet to the electrician to those who helped run his businesses, Bill's kindness, optimism, and work ethic inspired others to ``make things happen'' and be like Bill, no matter which rung of the economic ladder you occupied. His lifetime of service and good works was recognized in 2011 when Bill was presented with the Iowa Award, becoming the 21st person to receive our State's highest citizen honor.

Barbara and I share our condolences to Bill's wife Susan and members of the Knapp family. For nearly a century, Bill led a full life, lived with virtue and purpose. May his memory be a blessing, and may his loved ones take comfort that his legacy will endure for generations yet to come.

Mr. President, today, I commend First Lady Melania Trump for her leadership on the recent ``Fostering the Future for American Children and Families'' Executive order, and, obviously, the thanks would go to President Trump for his support of his wife's work. And it wouldn't happen without his signing the order last week. This action is an important step to see that young people who have experienced foster care are supported as they begin to navigate their lives as adults.

For decades, I have worked to shine a light on the challenges that foster youth face. The bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth that I launched with former Senator Mary Landrieu in 2009 and still cochair today has a particular focus on the challenges that older foster youth face.

Young people who already face constant uncertainty growing up, often compounded with the trauma of neglect and abuse, are then expected to lead the rest of their lives successfully on their own, and that is a hard way to start a life outside of foster care. And, of course, that is just not quite right. They deserve a mom and dad, a supportive and safe environment to grow up and to develop, and to have meaningful connections.

While nothing can replace the things I just mentioned, I find they, at least, ought to have a chance to have some support to pursue higher education and find employment and stable housing, all to help prepare for their future.

I continue to work to find avenues to provide this support for these young people, including exploring ways to increase the awareness of Federal programs that support older foster youth.

I started out by complimenting our First Lady. In her remarks announcing the Executive order, the First Lady said this:

I predict this small spark today will ignite a profound and

lasting nationwide movement.

I share her optimism and, once again, thank her for her commitment to improve the lives of young people. I look forward to working with her and supporting how I can do that here in the United States Senate, both as an individual Senator and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.

Iowa

Mr. President, on another article, on Thursday, in Kossuth County, IA, I completed my 45th annual 99 county meetings. For 45 years in a row, I have held at least one question-and-answer session in all of Iowa's 99 counties.

Now, I have to modify that just a little bit because I remember--and it is not here in print--that in my first term in office, there was one county where nobody showed up, but, otherwise, I have had a Q&A in every county of Iowa--all 99--for the last 45 years.

Last week, I met with welders, students, family farmers, factory workers, and others to hear what is on their minds. I was in two high schools so I could hear straight from the next generation of Iowans about what is most important to young Iowans.

This year, I joined an artificial intelligence workshop in Grinnell, IA, with small business owners. I visited seven hospitals to hear from nurses and doctors about changes to Medicaid and how I am working to strengthen rural healthcare.

I held a roundtable with restaurant and hotel workers about the no tax on overtime and no tax on tips. These were all provisions, as we Senators know, from last summer's tax bill--everything to help working men and women of our country. These workers told me how the tax bill was a big moral boost for their employees and also to help recruit more employees.

Congress legislates and makes policy that impacts Americans. As a part of representative government, it is important to hear from our constituents how this policy is impacting their daily lives.

Hearing from Iowans face to face in my county meetings is the best way to keep in touch, but, as I tell them at that particular time, they only see me maybe 1 day out of 365. There are 364 days in the year that they ought to be telling me what is on their minds. So I encourage all Iowans to write or call my office with their opinions, and I always say dialogue is the essence of representative government. So if they don't see me face to face to have that conversation and they have it by email, they should expect an answer. If you don't get an answer, let me know because if I encourage you to write to me and I say I am going to answer, then I had better give you an answer.

Knowing what Iowans care about helps me better serve them. I look forward to more Q-and-A's in the coming weeks.

Waiving Quorum Call

I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Nieh nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is the 40th day of the government shutdown. It has been so long that a recap is in order.

As I have said before, Iowans don't plan their lives around what we do here in Congress, but the Democrats' failure to support a clean, bipartisan funding bill has caused pain, suffering, and uncertainty for the American people.

Let's remember: It is the Democrats who caused the shutdown and got us into this mess. All but three Democrats have repeatedly voted against a clean continuing resolution to fund government Agencies and programs even at Biden-era levels. They won't even support funding that Democrats had voted for and supported for the last 4 years prior to Trump's reelection.

All we need are five more Democrats.

There are not any partisan policy priorities from either side. That is why we call it a clean government funding resolution. Republicans, by supporting this continuing resolution, have sought to put partisan politics aside to keep the government open for the American people while the Appropriations Committee members hash out full-year appropriations bills under what we call regular order.

Obviously, for the last 40 days, the taxpayers of this country and every citizen have seen demonstrated daily that Democrats have had plans other than just a clean funding resolution. They have not put their policy priorities to the side. They have taken the American people hostage by refusing to vote for government funding unless it has included their partisan priorities.

At the top of their list is an extension of the Biden-era COVID subsidies for ObamaCare. Understand that what we are talking about was instituted because we had a COVID shutdown of government, and people were hurt because the government decided in early 2020, at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, that 22 million people should be put on the unemployment rolls. That is what happens when the government shuts down the economy.

So this is a subsidy that Democrats decided to sunset at the end of this year. Now the Democrats have shut down the government to continue what was meant to be a temporary program. Something we have learned from the word ``temporary'' program or ``temporary'' taxes is that everybody soon decides temporary becomes permanent.

These expanded subsidies that go back to the beginning of the COVID era go to big insurance companies for Americans over 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. Can you believe it? What I mean when I say ``over 400 percent of the poverty level'' is that it could include people making over $600,000 a year.

I want to make clear, this expiration is only about the expanded, temporary COVID subsidies. So to everybody else who depends on the subsidy for ObamaCare, I want to make it very clear to them that the premium subsidies for individuals and families under 400 percent of the Federal poverty level that existed prior to COVID are permanent law. Those people will not be affected because that permanent law is not being changed by anything we are debating here today--permanent law; no change for those under 400 percent of poverty.

Writing healthcare policy is our job--meaning the Senators' job and the House of Representatives' job. However, every one of us in this body knew that this deadline that we are talking about was approaching, and we had already made plans to address the policy issues later in the year. Yet, as we have found out now for the last 40 days, that timeline was not satisfactory to the Democrats.

I have been in elected office a long time. Taking the government hostage and shutting it down is always a losing proposition. It costs money to shut the government down, and it costs money to open the government up, and we find out little is accomplished. In the process, the government is supposed to be in service to the American people. When there are 700,000 Federal employees sitting at home who are probably going to be paid because they always have been paid, they can't serve the American people, and the government is not doing its job.

In my view, this shutdown was doomed from the start, but Democrats marched forward anyway, following their leaders into the mess that we now have had for the last 40 days.

On day 38--2 days ago, so 38 days after the government shut down-- Leader Schumer came to the Senate floor

and unveiled his big plan. On day 38, he came with the Democrats' first plan to get the American people out of this government shutdown.

Why would he wait 38 days? Why would he wait?

If you were serious about a bipartisan solution to lower the cost of healthcare for the American people, I don't believe you would sit idle for 38 days before making an offer.

I have shared the pain the shutdown has inflicted upon Iowans, but it bears repeating. I have families calling my office asking where they can get food. Our food banks are overrun as Thanksgiving is just a few weeks away.

I want to give you an example that was reported by the person behind this constituent in the checkout line. One of my constituents, while grocery shopping in Walmart in Marion, IA, was left with no groceries for her family when she found out at the cash register that her food stamps were not on her debit card. That kind of uncertainty has real- world impacts.

The realization brought this constituent to tears, it was reported to me. And why wouldn't you go into tears?

Let's just take a moment to think about how you would feel coming home emptyhanded from the grocery store and the stress it inflicts on families. Perhaps your kids are crying because they are hungry.

Young farmers can't get their loan money from the Department of Agriculture during this government shutdown. These young farmers are already in an ag economy that is underwater. How are they going to keep their business going?

Then, I don't know what percentage of the American public flies every day, but it is significant that flights are being canceled left and right because air traffic controllers aren't being paid. That means people who are trying to get to a sick family member or attend a sister's wedding may not make it on time.

Law enforcement, including our own Capitol Police whom we rub shoulders with every day here, are working overtime and not being paid.

The entire Federal workforce is not being paid--3 million people who have families and bills to pay.

Those are just four or five examples. Unfortunately, the list could go on.

I often say Washington, DC, right where we are standing now--this town and the people who are in it--live and work in an island surrounded by reality.

I have been begging Leader Schumer to give just five Democrats the go-ahead to join us in a commonsense clean funding bill.

Let me remind you that Democrats voted for this same structure of a clean funding resolution at least 13 times during the 4 years of President Biden. So I would ask them: What is wrong with voting for a clean funding resolution during this year and during this shutdown or to prevent this shutdown?

The answer is, The American people elected a new President, and that President is not a Democrat. Well, elections have consequences. In a democratic republic, the will of the people is exercised by voters, and congressional leaders must respect that and live with the consequences.

It is past time the Democrat leaders cut loose their Members who want to work in a bipartisan way.

Iowans at my town meetings want more bipartisanship out of Washington. They are cynical that all we do is fight and nothing ever gets done. I tried to educate them on how it is not as bad as what they see on TV, and Senators really do want to legislate and serve the American people.

So let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done. The American people deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I come to the floor ahead of next Tuesday, which is Veterans Day, to recognize and share my gratitude to those who have all answered the call to serve the United States of America.

November 11 is the Federal holiday that we observe today as Veterans Day. It has not always been referred to as Veterans Day. Its origins come from the term Armistice Day, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, which marked the end of World War I.

The holiday is often marked by tributes and other ceremonies to show our gratitude to our family, friends, and neighbors who have served.

In honor of Veterans Day, my office typically hosts a Veterans History Project event to collect stories from Iowa veterans and submit those stories to the Library of Congress to honor those individuals and their service for generations to come, also, so that researchers can hear the exact words spoken from the mouths of those veterans of what war is all about.

To date, I have submitted 95 stories from Iowa veterans to the Library of Congress. There are more Iowa veterans who wish to share their story, and I look forward to continuing my efforts to preserve those stories.

Normally, it would be this weekend at some major city in Iowa. I would ask veterans to gather so we can record their memories. Obviously, with the government shutdown, that is impossible for my staff to do, but we will continue that as long as I serve in the U.S. Senate.

I would also like to recognize that, this year, the day before Veterans Day marks the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Marines. On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress established the Marine Corps. I have been fortunate enough to have a brother who served in the Marines in World War II. I have had a grandson in the Marines in the last 10 years.

For the last 250 years, the Marine Corps has faithfully defended our Nation with a distinct fighting spirit, and I am confident that the Marines will continue to do that.

Thank you to our dedicated marines and thank you to all veterans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate earlier this year warning my colleagues that the leader of one of the subdivisions within the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Dodik, was ignoring rulings by the national-level Bosnia court. He was threatening to have half the country secede, which, of course, drags up memories we should never forget about the war and the genocide in those countries in the 1990s in which many Bosnian Iowans lost family.

Well, I am glad that he has since complied with the court ruling by stepping down from his position as leader of the RS entity and walked back some of his destabilizing actions. In return, the United States has dropped sanctions against Mr. Dodik and his family.

I am all for rewarding this good behavior, but there are very good reasons to believe that Mr. Dodik has not seen the error of his ways. Mr. Dodik, since, falsely alleged that he was still the rightful President of RS, questioned whether Bosnia and Herzegovina should continue to exist--and can you believe this?--he was photographed embracing Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Belarus.

Mr. Dodik should be on notice then that the United States is watching to see that he stays on the straight and narrow that he wants us to believe that he is on.

I can assure you that this Senator will be on the lookout for any destabilizing actions that threaten the peace in Bosnia. And I will work with the Trump administration to make sure that all actors in the region respect the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the violence and genocide that took place in 1995.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to express my concern about recent attacks on the legitimacy of the judicial branch of government.

A fair and neutral judiciary plays a very indispensable role in our constitutional structure. Judges wield enormous power, and their decisions determine the legal rights of the parties before them.

One especially potent power of the judiciary is the practice of judicial review. As we all know, the judiciary sometimes decides cases that impact the operation of laws passed by Congress or the actions of the executive branch. We accept this judicial review because neutral arbiters are necessary in a system based upon the rule of law, but this system only works if everyone accepts that the arbiters are, in fact, neutral. Litigants, the coequal branches of government, and the American people must be confident that judges are merely saying what the law is and not what those judges wish the law to be.

Our judicial system also requires respect for appellate review. The Federal courts are hierarchal, and the rule of law depends on public confidence that lower courts will faithfully apply and respect the decisions of the higher courts. It is no surprise that some people are not always happy with how the courts exercise judicial power. Criticism is fair and sometimes warranted, but too often it has strayed into outright attacks on the judiciary as an institution.

Today, however, I am here to discuss attacks on the judiciary coming particularly from a concerning place that is within the judiciary itself. It is one thing for the political branches or the public to criticize the Supreme Court. It is entirely different for Federal judges themselves to undermine their own branch of government. In two high-profile instances in the last few months, numerous judges have anonymously gone, as you might expect, to the press to denigrate the Supreme Court. This ought to be deeply concerning not only to this Senator but to the public at large.

On September 4, 2025, NBC News published a report alleging that 12 Federal judges gave anonymous interviews, and 10 of them took that opportunity to criticize the Supreme Court.

One judge described the Supreme Court's conduct as ``inexcusable.''

Another judge said the Supreme Court ``is effectively assisting the Trump administration in `undermining the lower courts.'''

Then we have a big hit piece by the New York Times on October 11, 2025. That newspaper ran a story where they sought out judges specifically to criticize the Supreme Court. The Times approached 400 of the almost 1,500 Federal judges with questionnaires. The Times intentionally solicited judges in districts that litigants considered to be unfavorable to the current President. Of the 400 judges approached, thank God only a small percentage took the offer. I think this is an important point. Then we can draw the conclusion most Federal judges didn't take the bait of the New York Times because it violated the ethics of the judiciary. So only a small percentage did, but that is still a fabulous 65 judges responding to the Times' questionnaire. It happens that some responded with very harsh criticism. They then gave the Times the fodder that they needed to spin the narrative of a judiciary in crisis.

The Times wrote:

[F]ederal judges called the Supreme Court's emergency

orders ``mystical,'' ``overly blunt,'' ``incredibly

demoralizing and troubling'' and ``a slap in the face to the

district courts.''

One judge compared their district's current relationship with the Supreme Court to a ``war zone.''

Another said the courts were in the midst of a ``judicial crisis.''

I am deeply concerned--and I hope the public at large is--that these public

attacks on the Court from sitting Federal judges damage the public's faith and confidence in our judicial system. When judges call the legitimacy of their own branch of government into question, they erode the faith of the institution itself.

My colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives, shares these concerns. Together, we sent a letter of concern to Chief Justice Roberts. We expressed our concern that the conduct of the judges, as reported, may violate the applicable ethical canons. We also asked whether the judicial branch will give guidance to Federal judges or even investigate this matter.

The document called the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is very clear that judges have an obligation to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. For example, canon 2 states:

[A judge] . . . should act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality

of the judiciary.

In 2024, Chief Judge Diaz of the Fourth Circuit applied the canon in resolving a judicial complaint against a judge for authoring an opinion piece lambasting a sitting Supreme Court Justice. He concluded that the judge in question violated the canons and ``diminish[ed] the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.'' Chief Judge Diaz's reasoning appears to apply with similar force to the recent anonymous attacks on the Court.

Anonymous public comments from sitting judges describing the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts as a ``war zone'' and otherwise attacking the legitimacy of the Supreme Court rulings undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In fact, it may violate the Code of Conduct.

Judges shouldn't mimic the infighting and rhetorical attacks that are so common among us in the political arena. This damages the public's faith in the judiciary.

The Supreme Court is a uniquely American institution that has played an important role since our Republic's founding. In contrast to the other branches--meaning the political branches of the Federal Government--the Supreme Court is meant to stand above the day-to-day squabbles of politics. And that is not just the Supreme Court, as I implied; that is every level of the judicial branch. For the most part, the Court does this remarkably well--speaking of the Supreme Court. We know this because neither Democrats nor Republicans are always happy with the decision of our highest Court. The Court is either too conservative or too liberal, depending on the day and whom you ask. But at the bottom, the job of the Court is not to please us or agree with us but to say what the law is.

In recent years, we have seen vicious attacks against the Court from a variety of directions, many aimed at weakening public confidence in this important institution. This is bad for all of us. So today, I am here to defend the integrity of the Supreme Court and to urge the judicial branch to address these attacks that are coming from within-- mostly by district court judges--and the ones that reply to everything anonymously and really don't have the guts to stand up publicly with their criticism of the Supreme Court.

So here is my bottom line: I call on the Federal judiciary to give clear guidance to Federal judges on acceptable public commentary and to take seriously the public's perception and confidence in the courts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, you heard the Chaplain refer to the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney. The family announced that early this morning.

Dick Cheney lived a life of service to his country. He was bit by the political bug, biting him very early in his life, and he was committed in his entire life to public service. He served as White House Chief of Staff under President Ford. He was a Congressman for the people of Wyoming. He was the 17th Secretary of Defense and the 45th Vice President of the United States. Dick Cheney was a part of American history for more than five decades.

Barbara and I will pray for Dick's family as they mourn the loss of a beloved family member.

Mr. President, I want to compliment Erika Kirk, wife of the assassinated conservative leader Charlie Kirk. She has made the emotional appeal to have cameras in the courtroom at the trial of her husband's murderer. I commend her for this brave plea because it fits in with a stand I have been taking for the last couple of decades.

Courts at both the State and Federal level have a massive impact on our daily lives and the lives of generations to come. Yet few Americans get the chance to see the Nation's courts in action. That is almost totally true of Federal courts. I believe most States do allow cameras in the courtrooms, although not necessarily required under State procedure in State courtrooms.

I have long held that cameras should be present in the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, because what I said about State courts is not yet a requirement in Federal courts. Cameras would boost transparency and help Americans grow in confidence and understanding of the Federal Judiciary if we had cameras in the Federal courtrooms.

It has been maybe a joke that a couple of the Supreme Court Justices said that having cameras at the Supreme Court would be over their dead body. I don't wish anybody at the Federal court, whether they are liberals or conservatives on that court, to pass because of cameras in the courtrooms, but I happen to believe that cameras in the Federal courts, like State courts, would boost transparency and help Americans grow in confidence and understanding of the Judiciary.

When pivotal moments in history happen, we shouldn't be timid in calling for greater transparency that history demands in the Federal courts.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on Thursday, I sounded the alarm as the lapse in government funding endangered food assistance for 42 million Americans and rapidly approached. That was November 1, the approach date. I called on Senator Schumer to end the partisanship and vote for a clean extension of government funding.

Forty-five Democrats have opposed a clean extension of funding 13 times. Republicans have voted for it 13 times.

The Trump administration is putting a temporary bandaid on the program, tapping into emergency funds that will cover half a month of food stamps.

Meanwhile, I have Iowans calling my office, asking me where they can get food for their families.

This is a sad commentary on the politics in our Nation--in a nation of abundance.

I always say you are only nine meals away from a revolution. Just think, if you are a family, you have children, 3 days without any food, what action you might take if you can't properly feed them. We have seen those sorts of revolutions in other countries.

So let's feed the American people with the bipartisan cooperation they deserve and the bipartisan cooperation that has always been a part of the Food Stamp Program because, over decades ago, two famous Senators, Dole and McGovern, in a bipartisan fashion, came up with the idea that why should we have people that are nutrition deficient in the United States when the Federal Government has warehouses full of plenty of food. That is the basis for the Food Stamp Program. We should continue that bipartisan cooperation.

I hope the Democrats will wake up and give families a permanent solution to the government programs they rely on.