For the People Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment is well intentioned but riddled with inconsistencies that render it ineffective and unnecessary.

Although judges should be held to high ethical standards, it is a false equivalence to claim that Members of Congress and judges face the same dilemmas. Judges do not accept campaign funds, do not represent constituents, and have no term limits.

Every person who has the privilege to serve in our government should be held to a code of conduct, yet it is a misstep to assume that all branches of government have the same prerogatives and ethical pitfalls.

H.R. 1 already contains a reasonable approach to expanding ethics for the United States Supreme Court, and this amendment would confuse the clarity and enforcement of these standards.

The Judicial Conference of the United States is best suited to issue a code of conduct for the courts of the United States. Judges know best what predicaments judges face and how best to protect the integrity of our courts from corruption and improper conduct.

We should pass H.R. 1 without this amendment so that we can create effective, enforceable ethical standards for our courts.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Georgia for debating this amendment with me.

There are a lot of what I believe are constitutional issues with H.R. 1, legislative overreach that defies the equal branches of government. This one does not. All we are simply doing with this amendment is asking the Judicial Conference of the United States to implement a judicial code up and down the judicial spectrum.

Maybe it will actually help ensure that, as judges go through the confirmation process in the Senate for whatever level of Federal judgeship he or she may be nominated, it might help us understand who these judges are.

This is a very commonsense amendment. We are not saying Congress is going to legislate judicial conduct. We are just saying that we are the lawmakers. Why don't we ask the Judicial Conference to do it for the judges, just like our standards are set by Congress and the executive branch standards should be set by the executive branch.

These are small things that make a big difference in a big bill. Again, I have extended the olive branch of bipartisanship this entire day, yesterday, and I would certainly hope that that would be extended back to us because we have yet, in this entire process of H.R. 1--being a 622-page bill yesterday and added pages upon pages yesterday and today--not one single Republican amendment has been accepted. Not one. Maybe this is it.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source