OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Preserving Existing Judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Floor Speech

Date: April 1, 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Judicial Branch

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of S. 550, which reserves existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by increasing the cap on the number of judges that can serve on the court. Senate Bill 550 would increase the number of associate judges permitted to serve on the D.C. Superior Court from 58 to 61.

In accordance with the terms of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Act of 1997, Congress now wields legislative and funding authority over the District of Columbia court system. Under the terms of this arrangement, section 11-903 of the District of Columbia Official Code established an overall limit of 58 on the number of judges that may be seated on the Superior Court. The current limit of 58 is in addition to a chief judge.

However, in 2001, Congress passed the D.C. Family Court Act, and included in the Act a new provision that allowed the previously established limit on the number of judges to be exceeded only to appoint additional family court judges. As a result of this provision, the current number of associate superior court judges, combined with the 15 judges now seated on the D.C. Family Court, the cap of 58 has now been exceeded. This means that judgeship vacancies in the superior court cannot be filled unless additional retirements occur, which has led to delays in judicial proceedings, increased costs from prolonged litigation, and case backlogs. S. 550 would address these issues by increasing the number of associate judges from 58 to 61.

S. 550, which was first introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka, passed the Senate under unanimous consent on February 4, 2008, and on March 11, 2008 the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce Postal Service in the District of Columbia held a hearing to examine aspects of the legislation. The bill was then considered by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where it passed by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we, too, can approve Senate Bill 550 with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward