Hank Johnson: “This amendment is well intentioned but riddled with inconsistencies that render it ineffective and unnecessary. Although…”

“This amendment is well intentioned but riddled with inconsistencies that render it ineffective and unnecessary. Although judges should be held to high ethical standards, it is a false equivalence to claim that Members of Congress and judges face the same dilemmas. Judges do not accept campaign funds, do not represent constituents, and have no term limits. Every person who has the privilege to serve in our government should be held to a code of conduct, yet it is a misstep to assume that all branches of government have the same prerogatives and ethical pitfalls. H.R. 1 already contains a reasonable approach to expanding ethics for the United States Supreme Court, and this amendment would confuse the clarity and enforcement of these standards. The Judicial Conference of the United States is best suited to issue a code of conduct for the courts of the United States. Judges know best what predicaments judges face and how best to protect the integrity of our courts from corruption and improper conduct. We should pass H.R. 1 without this amendment so that we can create effective, enforceable ethical standards for our courts. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”