Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of a broken promise.

Last year, I proudly joined my colleagues, Courts Subcommittee Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Johnson, in introducing the JUDGES Act. For decades, Congress has been at an impasse on the question of how to create new judgeships while not knowingly giving new appointees to the other party. This bipartisan, bicameral bill would have broken that logjam by having both sides agree to take a chance on their own party winning the White House.

Under this legislation, we all promised to give the next three, unknown, Presidents a certain number of judgeships. Because no one can tell the future, we were all at an equal disadvantage.

Nevertheless, for this deal to work, the bill had to be passed before election day. On November 6, we would all know who the next President would be, and the deal would be broken.

The Senate did its part and passed the bill over the summer, but the House Republican leadership was unwilling to take a chance on their own candidate, and they refused to bring the bill to the floor before the election. Thus, the agreement central to the JUDGES Act, that the opportunity to appoint new judges is given to an unknown future President, is now broken. However, that is not stopping our Republican colleagues from taking advantage of all of the Senators and House Members who took a chance on bipartisanship.

Unfortunately, we are back where we have always been every time a bill to create new judgeships comes before Congress, with one party seeking a tactical advantage over the other.

Since we know that Donald Trump sees the Federal courts as nothing more than an extension of his political operation, and during his first term he stacked them with dangerously unqualified and ideological appointees, giving him more power to appoint additional judges would be irresponsible.

Under the allocation set forth in the JUDGES Act, he would get 25 judgeship nominations on top of the 100-plus spots on the judicial bench expected to open up over the next 4 years. Donald Trump has made clear that he intends to expand the powers of the Presidency, and giving him 25 new judges to appoint gives him one more tool at his disposal to do just that.

Many of the people elevated by Donald Trump to the Federal bench were not just conservative-leaning judges. They have proven to be ultraconservative ideologues who have perverted the law to benefit Donald Trump and conservative causes.

They have also repeatedly been criticized for their lack of understanding of the law, for their inability to provide speedy decisionmaking, and for their repeated errors in judgment. We should not compound this problem by giving him yet more nominations to fill.

I have long argued for more Federal judges. Twenty years ago we were already overdue, and the problem has only gotten worse. However, Republicans and Democrats, quite reasonably, have never wanted to give an opposing party's President more power. Presidential administration after Presidential administration went by with no new judgeships created. The JUDGES Act would have broken that impasse if it had been passed before the Presidential election this year.

The genius behind the JUDGES Act and the deal to pass it was that it was devoid of the politics that have plagued the Federal judgeship creation process.

We took recommendations made by the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States. The nominees were spread out over three Presidential administrations and six Congresses. The judge allotments would begin with a future, unknown, next President.

In August, Senators from both sides of the aisle joined together and unanimously passed the JUDGES Act. We could have done the same thing here. We should have done the same thing here. If Republican leadership had brought the bill to the House floor in September, then we could have passed it on suspension in no time. Back then, the President would still have been unknown, and the underlying promise of the bill was still present.

Nevertheless, when S. 4199 arrived in the House, Republican leadership refused to touch it. As the days counted down before the election, my colleagues and I begged them to take it up. We explained the stakes. They knew that bipartisan support for creating desperately new judgeships would only exist if the bill was passed into law before November 5, but they refused.

Republican leadership was uninterested in taking the chance that their candidate might not win in November. It was a fair fight, and they wanted no part in it. Now they are here today during the narrow widow when the central promise behind the JUDGES Act is broken, trying to force this bill through the House on a partisan basis.

What we are seeing today is a tragic breakdown in what should have been a bipartisan process. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who fought for this bill over the summer and in September. Our work together reminds me that there can be opportunities for collegiality and collaboration across the aisle.

This good, honest work is even more striking when juxtaposed with the political gamesmanship we are seeing today, as the majority takes a nonpartisan bill and perverts it toward their own ends.

Mr. Speaker, 1 month and 8 days from now will be January 20, 2025. On Inauguration Day we will no longer know who the next President will be, and I would be happy to take up the promise behind the JUDGES Act that day and to give the additional judicial appointments to Presidents yet to come.

Until then, I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the committee, says we don't like what the American people did. Well, obviously we don't. We lost the election.

Relevant to this bill is we don't like what Mr. Jordan did. We don't like what the Republican leadership did in refusing to bring the Senate bill to a vote before the election.

We begged them to. Darrell Issa begged them and begged Mr. Jordan. I did. Hank Johnson did. We said to bring it to the floor before the election. It will pass unanimously, and we will have the judges that we need because if it is not brought to the floor until after the election, one party or the other is going to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, we are objecting to this bill not because we object to what the American people did but because we object to what Mr. Jordan and the Republican leadership did.

Mr. Speaker, had the Republican leadership taken this bill up in September, we could have been celebrating a true bipartisan victory right now.

There is no question that it is necessary to authorize new Federal judgeships for the growing caseload in the Federal courts. That is why I fought to take up this bill earlier this year when the next President was unknown. That is why the Senate passed the bill in August. That is why Mr. Issa and I and others urged Mr. Jordan and the Republican leadership to take up the bill before the election, when the central arrangement of the bill they were setting up, 66 new judges across three unknown Presidential administrations and six unknown congressional majorities, would have been there. Now, it is too late for that.

Now we can wait for the new Congress in January and pass the bill, but it will have to be delayed 4 years. Why? Because the Republican leadership refused to take up the bill when it should have, when it would have gotten a unanimous vote here as it got a unanimous vote in the Senate.

I will continue to fight for more Federal judges, but we must do it at a time when the identity of the next President is not known. That is the fundamental bargain that is fair to both parties. Until then, we should reject this bill as nothing more than partisan gamesmanship.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, nays 173, not voting 22, as follows: [Roll No. 501] YEAS--236 Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amodei Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bean (FL) Bentz Bera Bergman Bice Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Bucshon Burlison Calvert Cammack Caraveo Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Case Castor (FL) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Correa Costa Crane Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Curtis D'Esposito Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duarte Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Ezell Fallon Feenstra Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Gallego Garbarino Garcia, Mike Gimenez Golden (ME) Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez, V. Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Harder (CA) Harris Harshbarger Hern Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Houchin Houlahan Hudson Huizenga Hunt Issa Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Kean (NJ) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kiggans (VA) Kiley Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaLota LaMalfa Lamborn Langworthy Latta LaTurner Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lesko Letlow Lopez Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Luna Luttrell Mace Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast Matsui McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McHenry Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Nickel Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Owens Palmer Panetta Pence Perez Perry Peters Pfluger Phillips Posey Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Ryan Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Soto Spanberger Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Suozzi Tenney Thompson (CA) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Orden Vargas Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Wied Williams (NY) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--173 Adams Allred Amo Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bowman Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Burchett Bush Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Casar Casten Castro (TX) Chu Clark (MA) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Doggett Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Frost Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Robert Goldman (NY) Gomez Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Hayes Himes Horsford Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jackson (NC) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kildee Kilmer Krishnamoorthi Kuster Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (PA) Lee Carter Leger Fernandez Levin Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Manning McBath McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Menendez Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Pappas Pelosi Peltola Pettersen Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Quigley Ramirez Raskin Ross Roy Ruppersberger Salinas Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Smith (WA) Sorensen Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Underwood Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--22 Armstrong Burgess Chavez-DeRemer Cherfilus-McCormick Clarke (NY) Dingell Duncan Evans Ferguson Granger Grijalva Lee (CA) Molinaro Moskowitz Newhouse Rodgers (WA) Slotkin Trone Wagner Waltz Wexton Wild

Mr. VARGAS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated for:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source