[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:

  ``Texas:
  Northern....................................................        13
  Southern....................................................        22
  Eastern.....................................................         9
  Western.....................................................     16''.
 

       (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:

  ``Texas:
  Northern....................................................        13
  Southern....................................................        23
  Eastern.....................................................         9
  Western.....................................................     19''.
 

       (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.

                          ____________________