Derek Schmidt

Mr. Speaker, you will hear from advocates of Court expansion that the Court is a mere rubber stamp for Trump. This is a Court that defied Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to deport people without a hearing, to send troops to Chicago, to use emergency powers to impose tariffs, and to revoke birthright citizenship by executive order.

Some of my colleagues on both sides may be surprised that I just uttered those words, but those are not my words. Those are the words of three of my former colleagues, three former State Democratic attorneys general, who strongly support the Keep Nine Amendment and disagree with my friends on the other side: Chris Gorman from Kentucky, Steve Rosenthal, and Tony Troy from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that until this Congress, this was a bipartisan issue. It wasn't a Republican issue. It wasn't a Democratic issue.

Back when I served my State as attorney general in 2020, I wrote to the then-sponsors of this measure in this body and expressed my support for it, and it was a Republican from Virginia and a Democrat from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I include both of these statements and letters in the Record at this point.

State of Kansas,

Office of the Attorney General,

Topeka, KS, October 16, 2020.

Hon. Collin Peterson,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Denver Riggleman,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Peterson and Riggleman: I write in support

of your proposed House Joint Resolution 95, which proposes to

amend our United States Constitution to fix at nine the

number of Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I commend you for your bipartisan leadership on this matter,

the importance of which is apparent in light of recent calls

for Congress to ``pack the court'' by amending statutes to

add additional justices if the perceived balance among

current justices tips in a manner disfavored by some.

Your proposed amendment is simple and self-explanatory. It

would add the following thirteen words to our Constitution:

``The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of

nine justices.'' If proposed by the requisite two-third

majority of both houses of Congress and timely ratified by

three-fourths of the state legislatures, this amendment would

remove from the Congress authority to increase or decrease

the number of justices on the Supreme Court in response to

political pressures. The passions of the moment must not be

allowed to undermine the independence of our Supreme Court.

The need could not be greater. Twice in the past century--

once in 1937 and again today--cries to ``pack the court'' by

adding more justices for the purpose of diluting the

influence of those already seated have risen to the fore of

our nation's public discussion. The intent and effect of

those cries have been to challenge the Supreme Court's

independence in exercising judgment in cases and

controversies before it. For the past 150 years, no other

justification or need for altering the number of justices has

gained attention, demonstrating that fixing the number of

justices at nine, as is currently the case, is

administratively and legally suitable. As the late Justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said just over a year ago,

``Nine seems to be a good number.''

Our Constitution already provides mechanisms for public and

political considerations to influence the composition of the

Supreme Court over time--namely, the processes by which

Americans elect a President and United States Senators and by

which the President, with the advice and consent of the

Senate, appoints justices when vacancies arise. Other

provisions of our Constitution, such as the granting of

lifetime tenure to justices during good behavior, are

designed to ensure the independence of the judiciary. So too

is your proposal.

By removing from Congress the ability to pack the court

with additional justices in response to political pressures--

regardless of whether those pressures come from the political

left, the political right, or elsewhere--your proposed

amendment would reinforce our long and proud American

tradition of an independent judiciary that, as Alexander

Hamilton put it in Federalist 78, ``ha[s] neither FORCE nor

WILL, but merely judgment.'' I commend you for bringing this

measure forward and for your bipartisan cooperation in

proposing it. I hope the House of Representatives and the

Senate will see fit to advance it for consideration by the

state legislatures so the American people, through the

constitutional amendment process, can decide for themselves

whether threats of court packing should remain an option

available to Congress. I, for one, think it should not.

If I may be of assistance in your efforts, please let me

know.

Sincerely,

Derek Schmidt,

Kansas Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported the Keep Nine Amendment because I think it is the right thing to do for our Republic.

As has been stated here many times in today's somewhat jovial but I think very serious debate, turning the Supreme Court into a political football, whose size is expanded first by Republicans, then by Democrats, whoever has the political will and whoever is aggrieved at the moment will undermine that Court's ability to perform its unique and critical constitutional function.

For all of the distress that my friends on the other side have right now in their complaints about the Court, I assure this body those will be magnified manyfold if we allow ourselves to get into a bidding war over the size of the institution across the street.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat there seven times at counsel table. I have argued three causes. I have second-chaired four others--

I will tell you that sometimes I like how the court rules, behaves, and questions. Sometimes I don't like it. I have been on the winning end. I have been on the losing end, but neither of those is a justification to attack the institution itself.

My friend asks why nine and why would we give up our power? And the answer to that is we are not giving up our power because it is not within our power to do so. We are asking the people of this country, through the process that the Constitution establishes, whether they want to restrict our power and protect their Court at nine.

We should say ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 32) to clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas and California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 32.

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

Mr. Speaker, local access to Federal courts is critical to ensuring the rights of the people are protected.

Under current law, the Southern District of Texas is divided into seven districts. The Houston Division comprises 13 counties but is only authorized to hold court in Houston. The Southern District of California comprises two counties, and the Court is only authorized to be held in the city of San Diego. Both of these judicial districts have experienced significant population growth in recent years, and their organization means that far too many Americans have to travel long distances for their day in court.

In both regions, Americans may have to travel as far as 100 miles or more just to reach the Federal courthouse. These distances place an unnecessary burden on those who need to access both the civil and criminal justice systems. I might say, Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support this legislation, 100 miles isn't very far to get to the Federal courthouse when you live in parts of my home State of Kansas.

The Local Access to Courts Act would help to alleviate the burden by adding an additional place in both judicial districts where the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of California may hold court.

In the Southern District of Texas, S. 32 would add College Station to the list of places where court may be held. In the Southern District of California, this bill would add El Centro to the list of places where court may be held.

S. 32 would increase accessibility to our Federal courts for victims, jurors, civil parties, counsel, and the general public by sparing them from the burden of a multihour drive just to get to the nearest Federal courthouse.

S. 32 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I am glad to see that same bipartisan support in the House. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation can make a positive difference for people accessing justice in southern California and in south Texas, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1869) to strengthen the Department of Justices enforcement against trade-related crimes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1869.

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

Mr. Speaker, U.S. trade policy is a vital tool to protect American businesses and workers, ensure American competitiveness, and achieve our foreign policy objectives. However, smart trade policy, one that puts American workers and businesses first, means nothing if we cannot enforce it.

Today, criminal enterprises and bad actors, predominantly based in China, are breaking U.S. trade laws with impunity. This activity is showing up in three ways: financial fraud, counterfeiting, and forced labor.

Over the past decade, law enforcement has identified hundreds of instances of trade fraud, most of which originated in China. Not only has that fraud deprived us of antidumping and countervailing duties, but it has seriously undermined our trade policy.

In just one year, in FY 2024, U.S. authorities seized over $5.4 billion in counterfeit goods, with China accounting for more than 75 percent of those seizures. Those seizures reflect billions of dollars stolen from U.S. businesses and workers, which undermines the trade policies designed to protect them.

In the past 4 years, law enforcement has identified almost $1 billion in goods mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. These goods carry significant risk of having been produced by forced labor and are illegal to import into the United States.

We must do more to punish the criminals who are breaking our trade laws and inflicting serious harm to our economy to the tune of billions of dollars every year.

Securing the integrity of our trade is how we stop the bleeding and put American workers and families first. H.R. 1869 will set up the structure needed at the Department of Justice to go after criminals who perpetrate trade crimes.

These crimes include trade fraud, tariff and duty evasion, illegal smuggling, trade-based money laundering, trafficking in counterfeit goods, and more.

This bill will give DOJ's criminal division the resources to dedicate specialized personnel to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.

The importance of these issues to all Americans is clear from the broad bipartisan group of Members sponsoring this bill.

I thank all of the sponsors for their hard work and particularly the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, which played a vital and significant role in drafting and advancing this legislation.

I also thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for their bipartisan efforts on this bill. We may have significant policy differences on the Judiciary Committee, but I am glad we can work across party lines to advance trade policies that protect Americans.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1869, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support H.R. 1869, and I yield back the balance of my time.