[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4668-4669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PRESERVING EXISTING JUDGESHIPS ON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF 
                                COLUMBIA

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the Senate bill (S. 550) to preserve existing judgeships on the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                 S. 550

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT.

       Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code is 
     amended by striking ``fifty-eight'' and inserting ``61''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she might 
consume to the distinguished gentlelady from the District of Columbia, 
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, because your quick action 
on these matters affecting criminal and civil justice in the District 
of Columbia could not be more important to us. I appreciate the 
expertise of you and your staff in moving this bill forward.
  Like the prior bill, Mr. Speaker, this is not a home-rule matter, 
because the courts involved are Federal courts, article 1 courts. 
Indeed, this matter

[[Page 4669]]

started with the Senate of the United States which approves the judges 
of the DC Superior Court and confirms them as it confirms judges of 
other Federal courts. This bill again may be difficult to understand, 
but it is equally without additional cost to the Federal Government.
  This House was vigilant to see to it that the District of Columbia 
now has a reformed family court as a part of the Superior Court system. 
And may I thank the prior then-majority leader, Mr. DeLay, who worked 
so closely with me on this bill and saw to it that the bill was funded, 
that there were additional judges, and that essentially a court which 
had not been revised for 30 years is now a state-of-the-art family 
court.
  However, the Congress in its concern that children and families have 
adequate processing through this court mandated that there be at least 
15 of these judges who would be family court committed judges only. The 
purpose was to keep or to repair the prior circumstance where these 
matters were distributed to the full 58 judges in the ordinary course 
of business. By segregating these matters out, these matters involving 
families and children, we sought to see to it that they were handled 
quickly and efficiently.
  Congress never intended, however, to reduce the number of judges 
available to important criminal and civil matters, but in fact the cap 
has had that effect. So we have had an anomalous situation where the 
President of the United States, seeing a vacancy in the superior court 
unrelated to the family court, simply goes ahead and does what he is 
supposed to do; he nominates somebody to in fact fill that vacancy. But 
because of the cap which says you have got to have at least 15 of the 
judges to be family court judges, and with no increase in the number of 
judges, that person is sitting out there or standing out there, as you 
may, waiting for a vacancy to occur in the superior general part of the 
court as opposed to the family court.
  What this bill does is to recognize what Congress intended in the 
first place, and that is to do no harm to either section. So, there 
would be a full cadre of family court judges, but certainly to do no 
harm to the processing of civil and criminal court judges. Therefore, 
to retain the kind of balance we had before, we would have to raise the 
number of judges available to the superior court; and that would mean, 
instead of 58 as the at-now raise reads, you would have 61.
  Importantly, Mr. Speaker, you will note that there is no cost to the 
Federal Government. And both the chairman and I went to great lengths 
to make sure that we were not talking about increased appropriations. 
The court has assured us, and we have done our homework to assure 
ourselves, that the amount is already available in the appropriations 
that come to the Superior Court. All that is needed is for us to free 
up, if I may say so, the President of the United States so his nominees 
can in fact take their seats when in fact they are nominated.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will be brief. I think Ms. Norton outlined the history of this and 
why we are where we are today.
  Unlike a lot of legislation that comes to the floor on the District 
of Columbia, this actually emanated in the Senate, with Senators Akaka, 
Lieberman, and Voinovich joining hands to bring this. This legislation, 
S. 550, increases the total number of judgeships on the Superior Court 
from 58 to 61.
  In response to reports of abuse and neglect in child family services 
cases pending in the DC Superior Court in 2001, Congress created the 
family court in the district and assigned a dedicated cadre of judges 
to handle child and family cases. The legislation before us today is 
essentially a technical correction to the Family Court Act we enacted 
in 2001, increasing the cap on the number of judges in the DC Superior 
Court to accommodate the creation of this new family court.
  I want to thank Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Davis for 
moving this legislation so expeditiously to the floor. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. 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 DC 
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 DC 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 DC 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 550.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________