Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 185 (Thursday, December 12, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 185 (Thursday, December 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H7116-H7124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

JUDICIAL UNDERSTAFFING DELAYS GETTING EMERGENCIES SOLVED ACT OF 2024

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1612, I call up
the bill (S. 4199) to authorize additional district judges for the
district courts and convert temporary judgeships, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kim of California) pursuant to House
Resolution 1612, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 4199

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Judicial Understaffing
Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024'' or the
``JUDGES Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Article III of the Constitution of the United States
gives Congress the power to

[[Page H7117]]

establish judgeships in the district courts of the United
States.
(2) Congress has not created a new district court judgeship
since 2003 and has not enacted comprehensive judgeship
legislation since 1990.
(3) This represents the longest period of time since
district courts of the United States were established in 1789
that Congress has not authorized any new permanent district
court judgeships.
(4) By the end of fiscal year 2022, filings in the district
courts of the United States had increased by 30 percent since
the last comprehensive judgeship legislation.
(5) As of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases
in the district courts of the United States, with an average
of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month
period.
(6) To deal with increased filings in the district courts
of the United States, the Judicial Conference of the United
States requested the creation of 66 new district court
judgeships in its 2023 report.

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

(a) Additional Judgeships.--
(1) 2025.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 1 additional district judge for the central district of
California;
(ii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Delaware;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of
Florida;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Indiana;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Iowa;
(viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of New
Jersey;
(ix) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of New York;
(x) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of
Texas; and
(xi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, is amended--
(i) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 15
Eastern..................................................... 7
Central..................................................... 28
Southern.................................................... 13'';

(ii) by striking the item relating to Delaware and
inserting the following:

``Delaware.................................................. 5'';

(iii) by striking the items relating to Florida and
inserting the following:

``Florida:
Northern.................................................... 4
Middle...................................................... 16
Southern.................................................... 17'';

(iv) by striking the items relating to Indiana and
inserting the following:

``Indiana:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 6'';

(v) by striking the items relating to Iowa and inserting
the following:

``Iowa:
Northern.................................................... 3
Southern.................................................... 3'';

(vi) by striking the item relating to New Jersey and
inserting the following:

``New Jersey................................................ 18'';

(vii) by striking the items relating to New York and
inserting the following:

``New York:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 29
Eastern..................................................... 15
Western..................................................... 4''; and

(viii) by striking the items relating to Texas and
inserting the following:

``Texas:
Northern.................................................... 12
Southern.................................................... 20
Eastern..................................................... 8
Western..................................................... 13''.

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2025.
(2) 2027.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Arizona;
(ii) 2 additional district judges for the central district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of California;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of
Florida;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Florida;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Georgia;
(viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Idaho;
(ix) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Texas; and
(x) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1) of this
subsection, is amended--
(i) by striking the item relating to Arizona and inserting
the following:

``Arizona................................................... 13'';

(ii) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 16
Eastern..................................................... 8
Central..................................................... 30
Southern.................................................... 13'';

(iii) by striking the items relating to Florida and
inserting the following:

``Florida:
Northern.................................................... 4
Middle...................................................... 17
Southern.................................................... 18'';

(iv) by striking the items relating to Georgia and
inserting the following:

``Georgia:
Northern.................................................... 12
Middle...................................................... 4
Southern.................................................... 3'';

(v) by striking the item relating to Idaho and inserting
the following:

``Idaho..................................................... 3''; and

(vi) by striking the items relating to Texas and inserting
the following:

``Texas:
Northern.................................................... 13
Southern.................................................... 21
Eastern..................................................... 8
Western..................................................... 13''.

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2027.
(3) 2029.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 1 additional district judge for the central district of
California;
(ii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Colorado;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Delaware;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Nebraska;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of New York;
(viii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of Texas;
(ix) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Texas; and
(x) 1 additional district judge for the western district of
Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (2) of this
subsection, is amended--
(i) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 17
Eastern..................................................... 9
Central..................................................... 31
Southern.................................................... 13'';

(ii) by striking the item relating to Colorado and
inserting the following:

``Colorado.................................................. 8'';

(iii) by striking the item relating to Delaware and
inserting the following:

``Delaware.................................................. 6'';

(iv) by striking the item relating to Nebraska and
inserting the following:

``Nebraska.................................................. 4'';

(v) by striking the items relating to New York and
inserting the following:

``New York:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 29
Eastern..................................................... 16
Western..................................................... 4''; and

(vi) by striking the items relating to Texas and inserting
the following:

``Texas:
Northern.................................................... 13
Southern.................................................... 22
Eastern..................................................... 9
Western..................................................... 14''.

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2029.
(4) 2031.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Arizona;
(ii) 1 additional district judge for the central district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of California;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of California;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of
Florida;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Florida;
(viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of New
Jersey;
(ix) 1 additional district judge for the western district
of New York; and

[[Page H7118]]

(x) 2 additional district judges for the western district
of Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (3) of this
subsection, is amended--
(i) by striking the item relating to Arizona and inserting
the following:

``Arizona................................................... 14'';

(ii) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 18
Eastern..................................................... 10
Central..................................................... 32
Southern.................................................... 14'';

(iii) by striking the items relating to Florida and
inserting the following:

``Florida:
Northern.................................................... 4
Middle...................................................... 18
Southern.................................................... 19'';

(iv) by striking the item relating to New Jersey and
inserting the following:

``New Jersey................................................ 19'';

(v) by striking the items relating to New York and
inserting the following:

``New York:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 29
Eastern..................................................... 16
Western..................................................... 5''; and

(vi) by striking the items relating to Texas and inserting
the following:

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2031.
(5) 2033.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 2 additional district judges for the central district
of California;
(ii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Colorado;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of
Florida;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Florida;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Georgia;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of New York;
(viii) 1 additional district judge for the southern
district of Texas; and
(ix) 1 additional district judge for the western district
of Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (4) of this
subsection, is amended--
(i) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 19
Eastern..................................................... 10
Central..................................................... 34
Southern.................................................... 14'';

(ii) by striking the item relating to Colorado and
inserting the following:

``Colorado.................................................. 9'';

(iii) by striking the items relating to Florida and
inserting the following:

``Florida:
Northern.................................................... 5
Middle...................................................... 19
Southern.................................................... 19'';

(iv) by striking the items relating to Georgia and
inserting the following:

``Georgia:
Northern.................................................... 13
Middle...................................................... 4
Southern.................................................... 3'';

(v) by striking the items relating to New York and
inserting the following:

``New York:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 30
Eastern..................................................... 16
Western..................................................... 5''; and

(vi) by striking the items relating to Texas and inserting
the following:

``Texas:
Northern.................................................... 13
Southern.................................................... 23
Eastern..................................................... 9
Western..................................................... 17''.

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2033.
(6) 2035.--
(A) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(i) 2 additional district judges for the central district
of California;
(ii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of California;
(iii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of California;
(iv) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of
Florida;
(v) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Florida;
(vi) 1 additional district judge for the district of New
Jersey;
(vii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of New York;
(viii) 2 additional district judges for the western
district of Texas.
(B) Tables.--The table contained in section 133(a) of title
28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (5) of this
subsection, is amended--
(i) by striking the items relating to California and
inserting the following:

``California:
Northern.................................................... 20
Eastern..................................................... 10
Central..................................................... 36
Southern.................................................... 15'';

(ii) by striking the items relating to Florida and
inserting the following:

``Florida:
Northern.................................................... 5
Middle...................................................... 20
Southern.................................................... 20'';

(iii) by striking the item relating to New Jersey and
inserting the following:

``New Jersey................................................ 20'';

(iv) by striking the items relating to New York and
inserting the following:

``New York:
Northern.................................................... 5
Southern.................................................... 30
Eastern..................................................... 17
Western..................................................... 5''; and

(v) by striking the items relating to Texas and inserting
the following:

(C) Effective date.--This paragraph shall take effect on
January 21, 2035.
(b) Temporary Judgeships.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate--
(A) 2 additional district judges for the eastern district
of Oklahoma; and
(B) 1 additional district judge for the northern district
of Oklahoma.
(2) Vacancies not filled.--The first vacancy in the office
of district judge in each of the offices of district judge
authorized by this subsection, occurring 5 years or more
after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the
temporary district judgeship created in the applicable
district by this subsection, shall not be filled.
(3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on
January 21, 2025.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section and the amendments made by this
section--
(A) for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026, $12,965,330;
(B) for each of fiscal years 2027 and 2028, $23,152,375;
(C) for each of fiscal years 2029 and 2030, $32,413,325;
(D) for each of fiscal years 2031 and 2032, $42,600,370;
(E) for each of fiscal years 2033 and 2034, $51,861,320;
and
(F) for fiscal year 2035 and each fiscal year thereafter,
$61,122,270.
(2) Inflation adjustment.--For each fiscal year described
in paragraph (1), the amount authorized to be appropriated
for such fiscal year shall be increased by the percentage by
which--
(A) the Consumer Price Index for the previous fiscal year,
exceeds
(B) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year preceding
the fiscal year described in subparagraph (A).
(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``Consumer
Price Index'' means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (all items, United States city average), published
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

SEC. 4. ORGANIZATION OF UTAH DISTRICT COURTS.

Section 125(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``and St. George'' and inserting ``St. George,
Moab, and Monticello''.

SEC. 5. ORGANIZATION OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS.

Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (3), by inserting
``and College Station'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 6. ORGANIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS.

Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``and El Centro'' after ``at San Diego''.

SEC. 7. GAO REPORTS.

(a) Judicial Caseloads.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives and make publicly available reports--
(1) evaluating--
(A) the accuracy and objectiveness of case-related workload
measures and methodologies used by the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts for district courts of the United
States and courts of appeals of the United States;
(B) the impact of non-case-related activities of judges of
the district courts of the United States and courts of
appeals of the United States on judicial caseloads; and
(C) the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies of the
Administrative Office of the

[[Page H7119]]

United States Courts regarding senior judges; and
(2) providing any recommendations of the Comptroller
General with respect to the matters described in paragraph
(1).
(b) Detention Space.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on an assessment of--
(1) a determination of the needs of Federal agencies for
detention space;
(2) efforts by Federal agencies to acquire detention space;
and
(3) any challenges in determining and acquiring detention
space.

SEC. 8. PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY OF THE ARTICLE III JUDGESHIP
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF
THE UNITED STATES REPORT.

(a) In General.--The Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, in consultation with the Judicial Conference
of the United States, shall make publicly available on their
website, free of charge, the biennial report entitled
``Article III Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial
Conference of the United States''.
(b) Contents.--The report described in subsection (a)
should be released not less frequently than biennially and
contain the summaries and all related appendixes supporting
the judgeship recommendations of the Judicial Conference of
the United States, including--
(1) the process used by the Judicial Conference in
developing the recommendations;
(2) any caseload and methodology changes;
(3) judgeship surveys with recommendations; and
(4) specific information about each court for which the
Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships.
(c) Submission to Congress.--The Administrative Office of
the United States Courts shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives copies of the report described
in subsection (a).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

General Leave

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on S. 4199.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will be brief in opening. This is, in fact, a highly
bipartisan, bicameral bill that is, by God, overdue. Not since the
nineties have we done a full authorization to deal with the expansion
of our country and of the adjudication of Federal laws.
The fact is this passed the Senate overwhelmingly. It had essentially
no real adversaries. It costs just 5 percent of the discretionary bill,
and it saves countless billions of dollars.
The reality is this bill would have passed by unanimous consent had
we brought it sooner.
I apologize to everyone here for the hour we are taking about
something that we should have done before the elections and done it
quickly. Nevertheless, we are where we are. We are faced with a choice
today.
Do we add to the judgeships for the first time in 20 years and for
nearly 40 since it was done by an ordinary legislation rather than
appropriations, or do we, again, add to the backlog that is costing
American businesses countless billions of dollars in excess time and
fees and uncertainty as to the outcome?
Do we continue to have criminals allowed to plead out because there
isn't court time and U.S. Attorneys are faced with the decision of what
to do with somebody when, in fact, there just isn't enough time to get
them through?
There are over three-quarters of a million cases in backlog and only
about 600 judges to do it. This bill, over a 12-year period, will phase
in additional judges. I would have liked them sooner, and my colleagues
on the other side would have liked them sooner. This was a compromise.
The compromise was painful but necessary and bipartisan, and that was
that no one President and no one Senate would determine who these
judges were, keeping the politics out of it. It would only be pettiness
today if we were to not do this because of who got to be first.
This is no different from a coin flip at the start of a football
game. Yes, the winner gets to receive or kick as they choose, but
afterwards it will go back and forth for a very long time.
This is a very long time, and we should be with long thinkers on the
most permanent body in government.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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.

[[Page H7120]]

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. 4199, and
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0930

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Nehls), who is a member of the committee, a law enforcement
specialist, and a decorated veteran.
Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
bipartisan JUDGES Act, which would create 63 permanent Federal district
court judgeships and 3 temporary judgeships, including 10 in the great
State of Texas and 4 in my district, over the next 10 years.
This bill would also authorize additional courtroom locations in
multiple States to improve access for rural residents in large
districts, such as the Southern District of Texas.
Simply put, the JUDGES Act is a critical piece of legislation. The
population of the United States has increased by 50 million people
since the year 2000, and the number of cases pending in Federal trial
courts has nearly doubled. Despite this, Congress has not added more
Federal judges to the bench since 2004.
Unsurprisingly, this has led to staggering backlogs in Federal courts
across the country, which has, in turn, led to litigants losing access
to timely justice and a severely overworked judicial bench.
In the Southern District of Texas alone, which encompasses my
district, there are over 6,082 civil cases pending and 8,928 criminal
cases as of June of this year. A lack of rural courtroom locations also
forces Americans to commute for hours a day when called for Federal
jury duty or to access the courts. This is unacceptable for our
country, and it is incumbent upon Congress to address it.
As a Republican co-lead of this House companion version of the bill,
alongside my colleague Representative Issa, this legislation will not
only address multiyear case backlogs but will also ensure the
administration of justice in a reasonable timeframe.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The sudden opposition to this bill from
my friends on the other side of the aisle is nothing more than childish
foot stomping. The Democrats know that this is a fair bill, and my
colleagues know that it doesn't give any President or party an
advantage in appointing judges since they are to be added in six
segments over 10 years.
That is why my bill passed out of the House by unanimous consent, why
it is supported by Federal judges across the political spectrum, and
why House Republicans support this bill regardless of electoral
results. Since Democrats are angry over the results of this election,
the official Democrat position now seems to be that our Federal trial
court system should be left to languish under the weight of crippling
backlogs.
This bill is common sense. One of our most basic obligations as a
Congress is to oversee the judiciary and ensure it functions well.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to fulfill that obligation
and support this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the distinguished gentleman and ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 4199.
You don't get to pick the horse after that horse has already won the
race, but that is exactly what my Republican colleagues are seeking to
do today.
S. 4199 was bipartisan until just over a month ago. It was a bill
that I was proud to support, and it is one that I have been fighting
for because there is no question that we need more Federal judgeships.
We have been fighting this battle for years.
We haven't been able to pass a comprehensive bill on judgeships in
over three decades because my friends on the other side of the aisle
want to strangle the judicial system and privatize it, want to do
forced arbitration, and want to clog up the courts. Then, when my
colleagues do get a chance to appoint judges to the court, and
Justices, Republicans appoint rightwing extreme ideologues to the
bench.
When we look at the appointments that Donald Trump has announced so
far, people like Stephen Miller, Matt Gaetz, Robert Kennedy, Pam Bondi,
and Kash Patel, it is clear that Trump has said and has acted in ways
to pervert the justice system.
Mr. Speaker, S. 4199 would give this incoming President 25
appointments to the Federal judiciary of extreme rightwing ideologues.
It is just not something that is appropriate for us to support at this
particular time, given his track record.
Mr. Speaker, we could have passed this bill before the lameduck
session. In fact, that was what the intent was. It was to pass this
legislation before the next President was known. That was why the bill
passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
Since the Senate passed the bill before the election, they adhered to
the precept that we would pass this without knowing who the incoming
President would be. The Senate did its job. It held up to its end of
the bargain and sent this bill to us way back in August, before the
election.
When S. 4199 arrived in the House, Republican leadership injected
politics right back into the bill. The majority tried to do a
McConnell-type move here. My colleagues refused to bring the bill up
before the election, despite our pleadings that this bill must pass in
September to avoid politics and honor the agreement on the unknown next
President, just as the Senate did.
Mr. Speaker, it is not about honoring the agreement or fairness, but
it is about guaranteeing an outcome that will be in the majority's
favor.
We stand here today knowing who the next President will be. That
means that one party now will have a significant advantage under this
bill. This is the exact outcome we intended to avoid. It is because of
that broken promise that I can no longer support this bill.
I do not take this position lightly. Our judiciary is in dire need of
independent judges who will make reasoned decisions based on the law,
but if Republicans think giving 25 more district court seats to Trump
is going to fix the problem, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are sadly mistaken.

Bringing this bill to the floor after the election isn't fair and is
not right,

[[Page H7121]]

and this is rigging the game in the majority's favor. It makes it
political. It brings McConnell into the House.
I can't, in good conscience, support this bill, so I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, we often hear the term ``country before
party'' here in the House and throughout our country. It is clear we
didn't hear that here yet today on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My colleagues should think about the minority's argument. The
argument is very simple: We can't do it now because Trump won. We have
to wait 4 years to fix something everyone knows needs to be addressed,
but we can't do that. We have to wait 4 years because we don't like
what the people chose.
Mr. Speaker, the people spoke loudly and clearly. President Trump won
all seven swing States. He won 30 of the 50 States. He won the popular
vote. The Democratic argument is: We can't do what the people want.
Even though we haven't addressed this in 20 years, after a population
increase of 50 million people in our country, having hundreds of
thousands of pending civil cases, the Judicial Conference saying we
need it, and the bill coming out of the Senate unanimously, nope, we
can't do it because Trump won. That is the argument of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
The people have spoken.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to be as fair as possible. What
the chairman did on this bill was great work. It allows 66 judgeships
over the next 10 years. That will be three different Presidents who are
going to get to weigh in on this. Six different Congresses are going to
be in session over that timeframe.
In the first batch, I think California receives seven judges. Half of
the first batch, 22 or 25 of the first judges that President Trump will
get to appoint, come from States where both Senators are Democrats. It
can't be any more fair. The minority just doesn't like what the
American people did. That is the argument of the Democrats.
I say we pass this thing and address this situation that everyone
knows needs to be addressed. We need more judges. Everyone understands
that. It is bipartisan. When the Judicial Conference met, Republican
and Democratic judges were all for it. They didn't say that they don't
like what the people did. They just said let's fix what needs to be
fixed in our judicial system.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. The chairman has
worked very hard on it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ivey).
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 4199, the JUDGES Act.
I appreciate the comments that have come from the Republican side
this morning, Chairman Jordan in particular. We have had a chance to
pass bipartisan legislation out of that committee. In fact, a couple of
those bills have been mine, cosponsored with Republican Wesley Hunt. I
know we can get it done. I know we can work in a bipartisan fashion and
get legislation out of the committee when we choose to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this bill was to take the politics out
of judicial nominations and selections. I think it is pretty clear. I
think everyone would agree that this system has been broken for some
time.
The Republicans point to the Bork nomination. On the Democratic side,
we look at what happened with Merrick Garland and his Supreme Court
nomination, which was blocked. He had to wait almost a year and wasn't
even given a hearing during that time.
Then, after that, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the
Senate in about a 3-week period, if I recall correctly, even though
that happened just before the election and President Biden would have
been in place to make the selection for the Supreme Court at that time.
This bill was aimed at trying to get around that and take the
politics out of the selection process by having the decision made with
respect to the passage of the legislation before we knew who the
President was going to be. I thought that was a good way to go. I
didn't cosponsor this bill, frankly, because I was a little worried
that we would end up in exactly the place where we are today.
After the election was held, even though this bill came out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in June and was passed unanimously in the
Senate in August, the House Judiciary Committee had several markups in
September and August, so we could have taken the bill up then, but it
never happened.
In fact, it didn't happen until after the election and President
Trump was selected. Guess what happened then. Now that we are at the
eleventh hour, we didn't even bother to have the committee markup
process happen. My colleagues brought it straight to the floor and are
now asking us to vote for it today on this expedited basis now that
Republicans know who is going to win.
Mr. Speaker, we know how to do bipartisan legislation. Mr. Issa, the
gentleman on the other side, I know has done excellent bipartisan
legislation, working with members of this committee on the Democratic
side, and he has a long history of doing that. I think we can replicate
that again.
Today, I ask that we not pass this bill. I ask my colleagues to vote
against it. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's take another
crack at making sure that we do this in a bipartisan way.
I agree that we need more judges. In fact, the courthouse that I
practiced in, D.C. Superior Court, is short 10 judges. We need them
there. We need them in other courts that I practiced in. We need them
all over the country, but let's do it in the right way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding additional
time.
Mr. Speaker, we know how to do this the right way. The American
people want us to do it the right way. We know the judicial nomination
selection process has been broken for some time. This could be a way to
take a step in the right direction for fixing that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' today, and let's get
back to the drawing board and find a way to work together in a
bipartisan fashion, yielding an apolitical result.
Elections have consequences. Mr. Trump is going to have his chance to
put nominees on the court, for sure, but let's try to do it in a way
that looks out over time and makes it more equitable over time so that
we can have a balanced judiciary that the people believe in and have
confidence in and don't feel that it is political and partisan.

{time} 0945

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cline), a member of the committee, a member of the
subcommittee, a cosponsor of this legislation, and an active proponent
for the justice that we require by having Federal judges added to the
bench.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I hope we are not getting a taste of what is
to

[[Page H7122]]

come. The American people are watching. They have identified correctly
that Washington is broken. There are a lot of problems that have arisen
over the last 4 years because of the mismanagement from this White
House and from the Democratic leadership of this House.
They wanted a President and a Congress, a House and a Senate, who are
going to fix the problems facing this country.
Let me tell you, with the JUDGES Act, we are fixing a problem and we
are seeing Democrats, once again, throwing a temper tantrum because
they can't get their way. If this is what is to come over the next 4
years, get ready because it is going to be temper tantrum after temper
tantrum by the Democrats because they are not getting their way.
They deserve the time-out that they are getting over the next 2
years. The American people have given Democrats a time-out for a
reason.
This legislation responds to the findings of a nonpartisan
policymaking body, the Judicial Conference of the United States, by
creating the recommended judgeships during future Presidential
administrations, addressing a long overdue critical issue facing our
Federal judiciary and offering a meaningful solution.
It includes important updates to the structure and timing of new
judgeships and introduces enhanced transparency requirements and
provisions to ensure greater access to justice in high-need areas
nationwide.
As of March 31, 2023, Federal district courts were facing a backlog
of 686,000 pending cases, over half a million pending cases. That is an
average of 491 filings per judgeship over a single year.
These represent delayed justice for countless individuals and
businesses seeking resolution to their legal disputes. That is why the
Judicial Conference recommended these 66 new district court judgeships.
That is why the Senate passed it unanimously.
While some targeted legislation added 34 district court judgeships
between 1999 and 2003, it has been 20 years since Congress last acted
to address this issue comprehensively, and the Democrats are now
arguing that we should wait another 4 years.
No. No. The Democrats can sit in their time-out; Republicans are
going to lead. We deserve to have this legislation acted on so that the
American peoples' wishes to have the problems identified and solved are
implemented.
Given the severity of this issue, I can't believe that President
Biden opposes this important bill. I hope he will reconsider. This act
allows Congress the opportunity to modernize and strengthen our
judiciary to ensure that justice is not delayed, but delivered.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
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.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, normally, when you know a bill is going to pass, you
close quickly. I am going to break that rule for a few minutes today
because I want to make one last plea. I wish the plea was to the
American people as it should be. I wish the plea was to the Speaker as
it will be from a standpoint of where I look and where I speak, but the
plea is to the President of the United States not to be petty. It is to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the long-term
impact of this decision that has been spoken of today.
As the ranking member and my friend, Jerry Nadler, said, this was
bipartisan. This was something that was worked out, not just now, but
the gentleman from New York and I worked this out in 2017 and
similarly, we couldn't get it across the finish line.
After that, people decided to be partisan for a while, and Jerry and
I--if I may call the gentleman from New York my friend (Mr. Nadler),
Jerry--we said no. We are going to go back to being men of the House.
We are going to go back to doing what is good, putting country first,
and particularly putting the needs of Article III, the other body, the
one that we control, but only until they are appointed. Then once
appointed, they serve for life. They serve in any way they choose for
good behavior and as a result they become very independent and very
much nonpartisan.
I am going to appeal in a couple of ways, for a moment, to my
colleagues who have to make a vote that is not immediately to their
party's benefit and for which the first 2 years are not unknown. It is
easy to talk about 6 congressional periods, more than 10 years, 3
Presidents, and say, but I am not getting it the first 4 years.
Well, President Trump doesn't have 4 years; President Trump has 2
years in which we know that there is currently a Senate majority.
Senate majorities come and go. Very easily 2 years from now the Senate
could be under the other party's control. That would mean that no judge
would be brought in those second 4 years, and half of those 25 seats
that have been talked about here today, and probably more than half
because of the time it takes to get through the process, more than half
would be under a Senate that would say, no, we want to compromise.
I am a Californian. I have only had in my 24 years Democrats as my
Senators. I have had quite a few, different status, different
dedication. One of them is the current Vice President Kamala Harris. I
know how they use the blue slip. I know how in my State you don't get a
super Trumper.
The fact is, you don't get anyone without a process of going through
those Senators and getting compromise. I know that the seven that are
to be produced over these next 4 years--none of them, by the way, in my
home district where I desperately need them, but that was also part of
the consideration and compromise--those will be, in fact, with two
Democrat Senators who insist on moderate Republicans.
But let's go behind the nuances.
After those first 2 years, we have 8 more years. It could be that
most of those years could be with a Democrat President and a Democrat
Senate. Maybe not, but let's talk about the benefit or damage that if
the President--because this bill is going to pass, hopefully with
bipartisan support and, hopefully, with many people that aren't here
today who have heard from their judges.
If the President signs it, yes, he will be signing saying that a few
judges will be appointed and likely confirmed under this united
government that currently is forecast.
Let's look at the scope.
There are 890 judges, including our appellate judges, 677 at the
district court alone. In my district, almost half of the judges hearing
cases are senior status. They don't even count. That means that there
are over a thousand judges, including those who are on senior status,
still working, essentially for free because they could retire and get
the same money.
They, in fact, are working because the backlog is over three-quarters
of a million cases. They are working because otherwise patents and
other civil cases that cost tens of millions of dollars often, if
delayed, cost millions of

[[Page H7123]]

dollars a year. They are trying to keep the system working.
The damage to our country, to our economy if we choose not to have
this bill signed into law could be great, and the savings could be even
greater for the efficiency.
Lastly, let's ask the real question. Over 1,000 judges, 890 not on
senior status, and we are talking about 25 that could be appointed if
the President holds the Senate for his 4 years, 25 out of 890. That
isn't very many.
In the opening remarks, my good friend from New York did mention that
there could be 100 judges appointed by the next President and confirmed
by the Senate. That is true. That is going to happen whether we expand
this or not.
The question is, for example: For the three temporary judges in
Oklahoma, will the backlog of cases for Native Americans that prompted
those temporary positions, will that continue?
Will we continue to have judges constantly getting on airplanes and
running around almost like a riding circuit in order to fill a gap here
or there because they don't have enough judges but they try to find a
judge that they can move around a little bit?
Will we continue to have justice denied because justice delayed is
justice denied, or will we alleviate some of this?
Will we work with the Chief Justice and all the Justices of the
Supreme Court? By the way, there are nine of them and not one of them
has called the ranking member or the chairman and said, don't do this
bill now because it might be partisan.
The Justices of both parties, the judges appointed by both parties,
are still calling all of the offices and asking, please move this bill.
Lastly, in closing, I will share with my colleague on the other side
of the aisle, I wish we had brought this sooner. I know that it would
have been more likely to have been broadly passed and signed by a
President who thought his Vice President was going to replace him or
even earlier when he thought he was going to get a second term, but we
are not there.
We are in a position where I am going to ask as many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle to vote for this, to put country before
the obvious politics of it.
Lastly, the plea I make to the former Senator that I served with, the
former Vice President that I served with, and the President I now serve
with, don't be petty. Don't put politics ahead of the good of the
country.
Before considering the signing of this bill, which I know will go to
his desk, talk to the court, talk to Members that he, in fact, as a
Senator from Delaware helped put on the bench and ask them: Should I
sign this bill or should I veto it and hope that you can put up with 2,
4, or 20 more years before we send you enough judges to adjudicate the
cases, particularly civil, that are pending?
That is the plea I make here today. It is not a plea I have ever made
before, and I hope I don't have to make it again.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all our colleagues to please put country first
ahead of the obvious politics that are here and vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I vote in favor of S. 4199, the Judicial
Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024, to allow
for the creation of additional judgeships in under resourced district
courts across the country. However, this is not the version of the bill
I would have preferred due to the temporary nature of the additional
judgeships slated for the State of Oklahoma. As the only state to
receive additional temporary judgeships in this legislation, I believe
this not only ignores the ongoing need for more longstanding,
dependable resources across the state but also jeopardizes the
longevity of these essential positions and creates uncertainty in the
judicial system. Temporary judgeships will not satisfy the long-term
need for judicial resources following the permanent jurisdictional
shifts in criminal and civil proceedings in the state and subsequent
backlog of cases pending in the justice system. Any new judgeships
should be made permanent to reflect the drastic expansion of federal
jurisdiction and to enact swift justice on behalf of the people of
Oklahoma.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1612, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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

[[Page H7124]]

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

{time} 1029

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:
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for roll
call votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll
Call No. 501.
Stated against:
Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on
Roll Call No. 501.

____________________