[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13376-S13377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2068. A bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court 
of the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that would preserve existing seats on the District of 
Columbia Superior Court. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
Senators Voinovich and Akaka.
  The Superior Court is the trail court of general jurisdiction over 
local matters in the District of Columbia. The associate judges on the 
court are selected through a two-step review process. When a vacancy on 
the court occurs, usually because of a retiring judge, the District of 
Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission solicits applicants to fill 
the vacancy. The commission narrows the possible number of candidates 
to three and sends those three names to the President. The President 
then selects one of those three candidates and sends the nominee to the 
Senate for confirmation. Existing law caps the total number of judges 
on the superior court at 59.
  Unfortunately, two nominees currently pending in the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and an additional candidate 
expected to be nominated in the coming months may not be able to be 
seated on the court even if they are confirmed by the Senate. The three 
seats that these candidates are intended to fill were left open by 
retiring judges, so they are not new seats on the court.
  The cause of this unusual problem is the District of Columbia Family 
Court Act, enacted during the 107th Congress. That act created three 
new seats for the family court, which is a division of the superior 
court, but failed to increase the overall cap on the number of judges 
seated on the court. As a result, the Family Court Act effectively 
eliminated three existing seats in the other divisions of the court, 
including the criminal and civil divisions.

       As a result of this situation, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs currently has two 
     nominations pending for the superior court but no seats left 
     to fill. I also understand that there is yet another 
     nomination expected in the coming months. Since existing law 
     sets strict requirements on both the DC Judicial Nominations 
     Commission as well as the White House on how quickly they 
     must process potential candidates and make a nomination, it 
     is unclear whether they have legal grounds to halt their 
     processes.

  This is a highly unusual situation for this body to have nominations 
pending

[[Page S13377]]

before it for which there are no open positions. The bill I introduce 
today would rectify this problem by amending the District of Columbia 
Code to increase the cap on the number of associate judges on the 
superior court. This is not intended to create new seats on the Court; 
that was already done when the DC Family Court Act was enacted. 
Instead, this would preserve existing seats on the court and remedy a 
problem that is affecting not only the court but the Senate as well.
  I believe that it is also important to not only remedy the immediate 
problem before the Senate but also to ensure that all of the divisions 
of the superior court are fully staffed. This is more than just a 
procedural issue. It is also important for the citizens of the District 
of Columbia to know that all of the divisions, including criminal and 
civil, are operating at full capacity. Eliminating existing seats in 
the criminal and civil divisions will not improve the administration of 
justice in the District, but can only result an increased judicial 
caseload and delays at the courthouse.
  The legislation I introduce today is similar to legislation that was 
favorably reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs and 
subsequently passed by the Senate by unanimous consent during the 108th 
Congress. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
                                 ______