D.C. Courts And Public Defender Service Act Of 2010

Floor Speech

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5367) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise certain administrative authorities of the District of Columbia courts, and to authorize the District of Columbia Public Defender Service to provide professional liability insurance for officers and employees of the Service for claims relating to services furnished within the scope of employment with the Service, as amended.

BREAK IN TEXT

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

BREAK IN TEXT

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

I rise in support of H.R. 5367, the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2010. I introduced this bill on May 24, 2010, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee ordered the bill reported on September 23. H.R. 5367 expands the administrative authorities of the District of Columbia Court system and increases the efficiency of the system.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is at the special request of the Article I Courts of the District of Columbia where changes need the consent of Congress in order to be made. These are small but important changes to the court. It wishes the desire to hold its conferences other than on an annual basis, particularly given the fact that the court has access to Web sites and other ways to communicate to judges. Therefore, this bill simply leaves this matter to the discretion of the judiciary.

The bill also has an important section, allowing the court to toll judicial proceedings in the event of an emergency. We know that the District of Columbia is in the cross-hairs of al Qaeda. We also know that we are not immune to natural disasters. While the court has the authority to conduct emergency sessions outside of the District of Columbia, it is imperative that it be able to delay proceedings so that it can reconfigure what to do in the event of an emergency. Similar bills have been introduced here in the Congress regarding the Federal court system, and several States have enacted similar legislation. I do not need to tell Members of this House what it would mean to a court of jurisdiction to be faced with a calendar and then an emergency as to what to do with, for example, commercial transactions or criminal matters. Clearly the court needs discretion to delay, according to the circumstances, such justice as it sees fit.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5367.

Source