[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9985-H9987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




LIMITATION ON CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS SERVING AS FEDERAL JUDGES ON THE 
                               SAME COURT

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill ( S. 1892) to provide that a person closely related to a 
judge of a court

[[Page H9986]]

exercising judicial power under article III of the United States 
Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) may not be appointed as a 
judge of the same court, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 1892

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON CLOSELY RELATED PERSONS SERVING AS 
                   FEDERAL JUDGES ON THE SAME COURT.

       (a) In General.--Section 458 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)(1)'' before ``No person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) With respect to the appointment of a judge of a court 
     exercising judicial power under article III of the United 
     States Constitution (other than the Supreme Court), 
     subsection (b) shall apply in lieu of this subsection.
       ``(b)(1) In this subsection, the term--
       ``(A) `same court' means--
       ``(i) in the case of a district court, the court of a 
     single judicial district; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a court of appeals, the court of 
     appeals of a single circuit; and
       ``(B) `member'--
       ``(i) means an active judge or a judge retired in senior 
     status under section 371(b); and
       ``(ii) shall not include a retired judge, except as 
     described under clause (i).
       ``(2) No person may be appointed to the position of judge 
     of a court exercising judicial power under article III of the 
     United States Constitution (other than the Supreme Court) who 
     is related by affinity or consanguinity within the degree of 
     first cousin to any judge who is a member of the same 
     court.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act and shall apply only to any 
     individual whose nomination is submitted to the Senate on or 
     after such date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of S. 1892, a bill to provide that a person closely 
related to a judge of Federal court may not be appointed as a judge of 
the same court. The integrity of our Federal court system is a 
paramount concern for this Congress, and this bill further insures that 
a citizen litigant will know that an individual appointed to the bench 
was done so out of merit and not out of nepotism.
  This bill has no known opposition to me and was passed by the Senate 
unanimously by voice vote. The Senate version we consider today is 
virtually identical to the House version introduced by the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn). I want to commend her on her interest, 
leadership and diligence in bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
qualified objection to H.R. 3926, S. 1892, another unnecessary piece of 
legislation that I wish we were not considering at any time, and I 
understand that this bill is supported by those who decided to extract 
a change in Federal court procedure in exchange for supporting the 
nomination of one Federal court candidate, an able one I might add.
  I will not call for a vote on this bill, but I do not support it. 
Rather my silence in not calling for a vote nor objecting more than 
this statement is my understanding from my years here that sometimes to 
get something done around here we have to do something we do not like.
  Obviously I respect the nominees for this very important bench and 
understand the circumstances that we face. There have been judicial 
candidates whose nominations have been pending before the Senate for 
far too long. I have said over and over again, as a Member of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, that we should stop the log jam and pay 
respect to the President of the United States in respecting the 
nominees who are long qualified but short on approval from the United 
States Senate. It is inappropriate as a matter of public policy and 
politics to hold up nominees because a clock is running out or because 
they are not affiliated with the right party. I do not approve of that, 
but it is a fact, and it is happening.
  As an opportunity to help break a log jam over one candidate, we are 
being asked to change the rules, the immediate effect of which would be 
nil. Although this bill was directed at the situation of a mother and 
son sitting on the ninth circuit together, if enacted, this bill would 
not even apply to that situation. So it is a solution in search of a 
problem.
  As I say, I do not think this is a good idea. I am glad, however, for 
the nominees' progress in moving through the process. I am glad this 
legislation was not around when I learned when the learned hands 
brother was appointed to the Southern District of New York or when 
President Bush appointed Morris Arnold to join his brother, Richard, on 
the Sixth Circuit.
  But the legislation is before us now. It is the price we are being 
asked to pay for a good candidates's nomination to go forward. So let 
us get on with it, but, as we get on with it, let us get on with it in 
the Senate to approve many others who are standing by waiting to be 
approved to be able to serve their Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman in any event for his good works 
on this matter albeit that I disagree with it, and I do believe that we 
will solve the problem for the gentleman tomorrow.
  I rise today to express my qualified objection to H.R. 3926, another 
unnecessary piece of legislation that I wish we were not considering at 
any time. I understand that this bill is supported by those who have 
decided to extract a change in Federal court procedure in exchange for 
supporting the nomination of one Federal court candidate. I will not 
call for a vote on this bill, but I do not support it. Rather, my 
silence in not calling for a vote, nor objecting more than this 
statement, is my understanding from my years here that sometimes to get 
something done around here, you have to do something you don't like.
  There have been judicial candidates whose nominations have been 
pending before the Senate for far too long. It is inappropriate as a 
matter of public policy, and politics, to hold up nominees because the 
clock is running out, or because they are not affiliated with the right 
party. I don't approve of that. But it is a fact. It is happening.
  As an opportunity to help break a log jam over one candidate, we are 
being asked to change the rules on consanguinity, the immediate effect 
of which would be nil. Although this bill was directed at the situation 
of a mother and son sitting on the ninth circuit together, if enacted 
this bill wouldn't even apply to that situation. So, it's a solution in 
search of a problem. As I say, I don't think this is a good idea. I'm 
glad this legislation wasn't around when learned Hand's brother was 
appointed to the Southern District of New York, or when President Bush 
appointed Morris Arnold to join his brother Richard on the sixth 
circuit.
  But the legislation is before us. It is the price we are being asked 
to pay for a good candidate's nomination to go forward. Let's get on 
with it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this legislation 
which will preserve the institutional integrity of the federal court 
system. This bill will clarify the 1922 anti-nepotism law, which 
prohibits the employment in any court of individuals who are related 
within the degree of first cousin.
  Currently, there is disagreement about whether this anti-nepotism law 
applies simply to employees or to the judges themselves.
  I believe that the law must apply to both employees and the judges if 
courts are to remain unbiased. It is the duty of Congress to ensure 
that the credibility of our judicial branch is not compromised. This is 
why I am supporting the Judicial Anti-Nepotism Act. This legislation 
clarifies the intent of the original 1922 law to preclude the 
appointment of a judge to a court if that person is related with the 
degree of first cousin to any judge to that same court.
  If the law were not to apply to the familial relationship of judges 
close family members would be able to serve concurrently on the same 
court, causing litigants to whose confidence in system clearly designed 
to be objective and impartial. We simply cannot afford to let this 
happen. We must assure that federal judges are independent from any 
outside

[[Page H9987]]

influence in order the their decisions to be completely just and based 
only on the laws and facts of the cases.
  When going to trial over serious, life changing issues, a litigant 
must be assured of the right to be treated fairly. When a judge sits in 
the position to over-turn the decision of another judge who is a close 
relative sitting on a panel of judges, the litigant clearly is going to 
question the impartiality and fairness of the final court decision. 
Preventing close family members from serving on the same court is a 
small price to pay to avoid the appearance of a loss of credibility of 
our court system.
  This bill passed unanimously out of the Senate yesterday. I encourage 
my colleagues to support this bill and help uphold the just character 
and composition of one of our most revered institutions. I want to 
thank Chairman Coble for allowing the expeditious consideration of this 
measure and urge my colleagues to support its passage.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Coble) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1892, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________