JUDGES Act of 2024

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1612 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1612, providing for consideration of three measures, including the Senate amendment to H.R. 5009, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-52.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee or their respective designees.

The rule also provides that the chair of the Armed Services Committee may insert into the Congressional Record, not later than December 10, 2024, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment and the motion specified in section 3.

Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4199, the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying piece of legislation, beginning with the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, Chairman

Mike Rogers, Ranking Member Adam Smith, and additional colleagues in the House and Senate, the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act represents the result of months of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration.

It is a bill that balances the needs of our servicemen and -women and the fiscal challenges facing our Nation. The NDAA significantly improves the quality of life for our servicemembers, deters our adversaries, supports our allies, and focuses on military readiness and our national security.

Our country is facing serious threats to our security and freedom at levels that we have not seen since World War II. It is imperative for our national security that our servicemembers and their families are supported so that they can focus on their mission.

Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established a panel to evaluate the quality of life for our servicemembers and found that servicemembers' standards of living are a major cause of low morale and family stress. This undermines our recruitment, retention, and military readiness.

The NDAA puts our servicemembers and their families first and addresses many of the issues found by the Quality of Life Panel. This legislation boosts compensation, improves housing, expands access to medical care, increases access to childcare, and provides support for the spouses of servicemembers.

Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support our warfighters at home and abroad and deters our adversaries.

The National Defense Authorization Act ensures that our Nation's military is organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries. Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nation or terrorist group must know that they will never succeed in a war with the United States of America.

To strengthen our defense, the NDAA supports the continued modernization of our nuclear deterrent. It invests in our naval fleet, increases innovation, and revitalizes our defense industrial base to ensure our warfighters have the capabilities they need to win on future battlefields.

The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring lethality, defending Israel, securing our southern border, and providing oversight and accountability.

We must continue to modernize our military. The NDAA fosters innovation by providing for the development and fielding of artificial intelligence, hypersonics, quantum computing, and autonomous systems.

The NDAA builds and maintains the overmatch we need to deter China. This legislation counters Communist China's maligned global influence in Africa, South America, and Central America. The NDAA removes Communist China from our supply chains and prevents CCP spies from infiltrating our research institutions.

The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and support of our Indo-Pacific allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries. This legislation also supports our ally Israel as they defend themselves from Hamas terrorists by fully funding cooperative missile defense programs and expanding emerging technology research and development efforts.

The NDAA reforms and improves the acquisition process by streamlining the budgeting, milestone, and contracting processes making them more efficient, user-friendly, and less costly.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the NDAA includes language that saves our taxpayers over $31 billion by cutting inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.

We live in the greatest Nation on Earth, and it is imperative that we support those who protect our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2025 NDAA is another step in that direction.

Now, moving on to H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is simple. It clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing machines unless these standards: one, are cost- effective and technologically feasible; two, save the consumers money; and three, save a significant amount of energy.

The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 already requires the Department of Energy to follow specific criteria for prescribing new efficiency standards and the DOE may only propose the new standard if the new standard results in a significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible, and economically justified.

The DOE, under President Biden, has consistently ignored the consumer protections built into the underlying statute and has used efficiency and appliance standards to pursue climate objectives over consumer choice. They have attempted to impose these mandates on every appliance in our homes: gas stoves, clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, and air-conditioners.

These mandates have increased the cost of appliances, undercut appliance production quality, and jeopardized

consumer choice. It is just another example of executive overreach that has made the cost of living for everyday Americans more expensive.

If the Biden administration had proposed standards in accordance with the law, H.R. 7673 wouldn't be coming to the floor.

Finally, we have S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024. It is another simple bill, Mr. Speaker.

Congress last comprehensively updated judgeships for the district courts in the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. Since then, the population of the United States has grown by nearly 100 million people and Federal caseload has increased by 40 percent.

In the last 20 years, civil cases pending more than 3 years have increased 346 percent and the average time between filing cases and trial is over 2 years, but often it is 3 to 4 years.

This bill is based off the 2023 recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States and increases district judgeships by 66 over time, splitting the new judges into six tranches across at least two Presidential administrations.

Additionally, S. 4199 amends certain districts in Utah, Texas, and California, and requires a GAO report on the caseload of district courts and courts of appeals with recommendations on how to alleviate any caseload-related challenges.

Mr. Speaker, to simplify it further, this bill requires the President to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, new judgeships for certain district courts by each of the years 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, and 2035.

That is across six different Congresses, across three different Presidential terms, and at least two different Presidential administrations.

This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August. I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August, and the House should now do its part to address the workload demands in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a second to read to the American citizens the provision that the Democratic Party, at least some in the Democratic Party, are using as an excuse to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act.

I will read this word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''

Let me read that one more time, Mr. Speaker. ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''

That is the provision that they are talking about that is their excuse for voting against the National Defense Authorization Act.

We are talking about children under the age of 18, and we are saying that we are not going to allow a surgical procedure on them that could lead to or result in sterilization.

I don't understand why we are even having this discussion. It defies logic to me that it is even legal to do that to a child under the age of 18. These are permanent and irreversible procedures, and they should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, they certainly shouldn't be an excuse to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that the citizens did vote for lower gas prices, grocery prices, secure borders, and extension of the Tax Code.

I again want to read the provision of the bill: Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child--a child, Mr. Speaker-- under the age of 18.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you a couple of the great things the National Defense Authorization Act does: 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted, and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers. It fixes some of the cost of living and the basic needs allowances for our soldiers, and it authorizes an additional $954 million over the Pentagon's request for housing and facility maintenance accounts.

It authorizes over $569 million to build new family housing units, $1.2 billion to renovate and build new barracks.

It increases access to childcare, authorizes over $176 million for the design and construction of new childcare centers. It fully funds childcare fee assistance programs to eliminate all fee assistance wait- lists for eligible families.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this National Defense Authorization Act. It takes care of our military servicemen and -women, and it makes sure that we are safe.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, as long as that treatment did not result in the sterilization of a child under the age of 18, then there is not a provision in this legislation that should be a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlewoman if she has any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will read the provision word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.'' That is word for word the language in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think every American knows that when agencies pass rules and regulations just for the sake of passing rules and regulations, those rules and regulations increase the costs of consumer goods. It doesn't hurt the billionaire. It hurts the working Americans.

This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in the House of Representatives. In fiscal year 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act fully authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs.

Mr. Speaker, it strengthens our military and takes important steps to address the security threats Americans face from our adversaries including China, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations.

It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our ally, Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern border.

Critically, Mr. Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families who sacrifice so much to defend us. This NDAA provides a 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers.

The NDAA has been enacted into law every year for 63 years, and I encourage all Members to do what is best for our military and national security and support this legislation.

Additionally, H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, pushes back on executive overreach that is increasing the costs of appliances and diminishing their quality.

Again, H.R. 7673 clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing machines, unless they are cost effective and technologically feasible, not likely to result in any additional costs to Americans, and save a significant amount of energy.

Again, passing additional rules and regulations that increase the cost of people's appliances doesn't matter to the billionaire. It does matter to the working American.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill which supports energy efficiency standards. As long as the technology exists to meet them, they don't take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, and they actually save energy.

Finally, S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024, adds 66 judgeships over three different Presidential terms. It fairly works to address the workload demands in our courts. I call on my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge on my colleagues to support this legislation which passed out of the Senate unanimously.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1612 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 9643) to protect and expand nationwide access to

fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective

designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 9643.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague from Rules (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, families all across the United States want Congress to help lower the cost of living, whether it is the single mom working to put enough food on the table for her kids or an elder who tries to stretch their Social Security as much as possible. Millions of Americans also worry about the cost of their utilities. Indeed, utility bills are at the heart of our most basic needs. They are some of the highest costs that working families have to think about each month.

H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act--yes, I know. Some chuckle just by hearing the title--but the Liberty in Laundry Act betrays Americans' desire for lower costs because it increases utility bills. Energy- efficient washing machines can save the average family up to $285 over the washing machine's lifetime.

Republicans would take away these savings with these bills. This isn't the first appliance where Republicans are raising costs. Republicans are making your refrigerators, dishwashers, and stoves even more expensive to operate. With these bills attacking energy efficiency, they are definitely not looking after American working families.

Who are they really protecting?

With just 6 more days in the congressional calendar this year, we have a laundry list. Indeed, we need to talk about laundry, but it is the laundry list of unfinished business that Congress should be doing for the American people.

However, my colleagues across the aisle decided that a washing machine is more important than Social Security, the farm bill, nutrition programs, and so much more.

I am here to tell you, when I am in New Mexico, my constituents never ask me what I am doing about washers and dryers unless, of course, I am lost in the hardware store.

They do ask, however, about saving Social Security and lowering the cost of medicine. While Democrats have worked hard to protect Social Security and lower healthcare costs, what do we hear from the other side? Trump's billionaire bros were just here and they said his plans would ``necessarily involve some temporary hardship,'' from billionaire bro Musk.

Now, I need to tell you, if you are a billionaire, a little bit of hardship, you are not going to face with some of the cuts they are talking. Working families will suffer.

This rule also includes the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2025. I am pleased that so much of this year's NDAA is rooted in improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.

These measures, some of which were described by my colleague, include things like the 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers and 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers. They are going to provide our military personnel with the resources they deserve.

Indeed, it is the care for our servicemembers and the shared goal of increased military readiness that typically makes the NDAA very bipartisan. That is why it is, indeed, disappointing that the Republican majority decided to use the NDAA to attack military families with the inclusion of a provision to attack transgender children.

As Ranking Member Smith eloquently discussed at Rules last night, for the first time, the NDAA is attacking a family member's right to choose the healthcare they need for their kids. He pointed out that there are thousands of families who rely on medical care to improve the lives of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Imagine, you are serving in the Marines because you and your family love your country, but your child is suffering. He comes to you, she comes to you, their pain is so great that they tell you they are contemplating suicide. Of course, as a parent, you want to do everything you can to help your child, and the medical profession has tools that can help. They can help you treat your child, save your child, make sure your child leads a healthy, happy life, but Congress is now telling that marine, you can't get the medical help your child needs.

Congress is telling that marine: We know better.

The Committee on Armed Services did not ask for this ban on transgender healthcare for minors. That was explained to us last night in Rules. This did not come out of the Committee whose goal is to look at armed services. No, this proposed ban was inserted by Speaker Johnson.

What Republicans are doing is interfering with a parent's ability to get healthcare for their children.

Why do Republicans keep interfering in personal healthcare decisions?

We have Republican politicians sitting on the examination table when a parent is trying to get their children care just like they sit on the examination table when women are trying to get reproductive healthcare.

This mean provision is a stain on the bipartisan NDAA.

I don't know why Republicans keep launching culture wars when the NDAA should focus on preventing wars.

Finally, the rule also includes the JUDGES Act, adding Federal judges to ensure we guarantee justice in America. We worked on a bipartisan bargain to do just that. Democrats and Republicans negotiated a good, fair deal to pass this bill, but the deal was to pass it before the election so we could ensure impartiality before anybody knew who had won.

Republican leadership went back on that deal and refused to move the bill until Donald Trump won. That is a huge breach of trust.

How are we supposed to negotiate unless the other side keeps their promise?

Republicans broke their word and broke the deal.

Time and again, the Republican majority shows the American people that their priorities are power and partisanship. They did it again with a closed rule for each of these bills, so Congress cannot debate any amendments that were offered.

Members should have the opportunity to debate. The American people should have the opportunity to hear where their Representatives stand on these issues, where they will vote on amendments, but we keep getting denied the right to have any amendments

debated on this floor in the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I point out, once again, that these are decisions, individual decisions with regard to gender care that a marine, a naval officer, or enlisted personnel are making in consultation with their doctors and for their family. We are saying we know better.

I would also point out what happens if your child has not gotten the care they need and have taken their life? Fifty-six percent of transgender youth attempt suicide.

When the Republican Governor of Utah was vetoing a transgender ban, his words were so moving. He said: I don't really understand this, but it is not my place to understand those decisions. This is what haunts me is his statement: ``But I want them to live.'' That is a quote. ``But I want them to live.''

We should want all of our children to live, and we should let the parents of those children take actions so that their children can live.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my dear friend and mentor.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 9643, a bill to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been relentless on their attacks against reproductive healthcare rights, including IVF treatments that are so important to millions of Americans hoping to start a family.

Just recently, the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of the NDAA contained provisions to improve IVF access for our servicemembers. However, what did Republicans do? They stripped those provisions from the legislation we are considering today. They stripped the recommendations to allow access to IVF treatment.

Simply put, that is why we must defeat the previous question and pass H.R. 9643, to ensure that IVF treatment is protected for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from my Democratic colleagues as we have raised our voices in opposition to this rule. We have raised our voices in opposition to this rule for numerous reasons.

One is that it is not really taking care of the people's business, of their most pressing concerns--liberty and laundry, really?--when we could be addressing key things like funding the government, protecting Social Security, passing the farm bill, and making sure that we have the nutrition programs so children do not go to school hungry and stay hungry.

We need to protect education. We need to do all of these things that the American people are asking for, and what do we get instead? We get their bills for liberty and laundry.

This is a continuation of their other bills, you know, stoves, refrigerators, all kinds of things that mean nothing to the American people but that mean a lot to those big corporations and those billionaires.

Time and time again, Republicans have come to this floor and told us who they stand with. They stand with the richest Americans. They stand with the billionaires. They stand with the wealthy corporations who do not want any regulation.

When they say no regulation, what they are saying is don't pass the kinds of regulations that save lives, don't pass the kinds of regulations that make sure that we save money. That is when we will constantly point out every time they do it: Who are you standing with? The wealthiest, the billionaires.

We are standing with working families.

Then, we have the NDAA, something that is usually and almost always bipartisan. You do not hear the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee come before the committee and describe how these kinds of provisions are poison pills, how they are a stain on bipartisanship.

My colleague across the aisle keeps getting up and pointing out one provision, but that provision fails to acknowledge that the lack of care leads to death, leads to suicide. You are standing in between a father, a mother, and their child. You are standing in between the parents, the doctors, and their child.

I think that Americans deserve more. We deserve American families, especially those who, as the story from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) said, have sacrificed so much for our Nation, who go and travel from one base to another base to another base knowing they can get care for their children.

Members on the other side say: No, no, no, we know better than you. We know better than the parent and the doctor as to what care your child should get.

That is insulting to our marines, to those who serve in our Navy, to those who are deployed overseas and on our bases around our own country. They deserve better.

That is why we are calling out that provision, because it interferes with a

family's ability to get care for their children. Because of these tragic problems and the fact that you don't let us debate anything--all those amendments that were offered, no, we never get to debate any of those, so the American people don't know. They can't hear us talk about these things. This is one of the only times we get to come to talk about these things.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

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.

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.