[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 123 (Thursday, September 20, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5740-H5750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT ACT OF 2001
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2657) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to
redesignate the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia as the Family Court of the Superior Court, to recruit and
retain trained and experienced judges to serve in the Family Court, to
promote consistency and efficiency in the assignment of judges to the
Family Court and in the consideration of actions and proceedings in the
Family Court, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2657
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF FAMILY DIVISION AS FAMILY COURT OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
(a) In General.--Section 11-902, District of Columbia Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 11-902. Organization of the court
``(a) In General.--The Superior Court shall consist of the
Family Court of the Superior Court and the following
divisions of the Superior Court:
``(1) The Civil Division.
``(2) The Criminal Division.
``(3) The Probate Division.
``(4) The Tax Division.
``(b) Branches.--The divisions of the Superior Court may be
divided into such branches as the Superior Court may by rule
prescribe.
``(c) Designation of Presiding Judge of Family Court.--The
chief judge of the Superior Court shall designate one of the
judges assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court to
serve as the presiding judge of the Family Court of the
Superior Court.
``(d) Jurisdiction Described.--The Family Court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over the actions, applications,
determinations, adjudications, and proceedings described in
section 11-1101, except that those actions within the
jurisdiction of the Domestic Violence Unit (a section of the
Civil Division, Criminal Division, and the Family Court)
pursuant to Administrative Order No. 96-25 (October 31, 1996)
shall remain in that Unit.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Chapter 9.--Section 11-906(b),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting ``the
Family Court and'' before ``the various divisions''.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Chapter 11.--(1) The heading
for chapter 11 of title 11, District of Columbia, is amended
by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family
Court''.
(2) Section 11-1101, District of Columbia Code, is amended
by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family
Court''.
(3) The item relating to chapter 11 in the table of
chapters for title 11, District of Columbia, is amended by
striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family Court''.
(d) Conforming Amendments to Title 16.--
(1) Calculation of child support.--Section 16-916.1(o)(6),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking ``Family
Division'' and inserting ``Family Court of the Superior
Court''.
(2) Expedited judicial hearing of cases brought before
hearing commissioners.--Section 16-924, District of Columbia
Code, is amended by striking ``Family Division'' each place
it appears in subsections (a) and (f) and inserting ``Family
Court''.
(3) General references to proceedings.--Chapter 23 of title
16, District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after
section 16-2301 the following new section:
``Sec. 16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court
of the Superior Court
``Upon the effective date of the District of Columbia
Family Court Act of 2001, any reference in this chapter or
any other Federal or District of Columbia law, Executive
order, rule, regulation, delegation of authority, or any
document of or pertaining to the Family Division of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall be deemed to
refer to the Family Court of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.''.
(4) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter I of chapter 23 of title 16, District of Columbia,
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
16-2301 the following new item:
``16-2301.1. References deemed to refer to Family Court of the Superior
Court.''
SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES; NUMBER AND
QUALIFICATIONS.
(a) Number of Judges for Family Court; Qualifications and
Terms of Service.--Chapter 9 of title 11, District of
Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-908
the following new section:
``Sec. 11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and
service of judges of Family Court
``(a) Number of Judges.--The number of judges serving on
the Family Court of the Superior Court at any time may not
be--
``(1) less than the number of judges determined by the
chief judge of the Superior Court to be needed to serve on
the Family Court under the transition plan for the Family
Court prepared and submitted to the President and Congress
under section 3(b) of the District of Columbia Family Court
Act of 2001; or
``(2) greater than 15.
``(b) Qualifications.--The chief judge may not assign an
individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court
unless--
``(1) the individual has training or expertise in family
law;
``(2) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the
individual intends to serve the full term of service, except
that this paragraph shall not apply with respect to
individuals serving as senior judges under section 11-1504;
and
``(3) the individual certifies to the chief judge that the
individual will participate in the ongoing training programs
carried out for judges of the Family Court under section 11-
1104(c).
``(c) Term of Service.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
individual assigned to serve as a judge of the Family Court
of the Superior Court shall serve for a term of 5 years.
``(2) Special rule for judges serving on superior court on
date of enactment of family court act.--
``(A) In general.--An individual assigned to serve as a
judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court who is
serving as a judge of the Superior Court on the date of the
enactment of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
2001 shall serve for a term of not fewer than 3 years.
``(B) Reduction of period for judges serving in family
division.--In the case of a judge of the Superior Court who
is serving as a judge in the Family Division of the Court on
the date of the enactment of the District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001, the 3-year term applicable under
subparagraph (A) shall be reduced by the length of any period
of consecutive service as a judge in such Division as of the
date of the enactment of such Act.
``(3) Assignment for additional service.--After the term of
service of a judge of the Family Court (as described in
paragraph (1) or paragraph (2)) expires, at the judge's
request the judge may be assigned for additional service on
the Family Court for a period of such duration (consistent
with section 431(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act) as the chief judge may provide.
``(4) Permitting service on family court for entire term.--
At the request of the judge, a judge may serve as a judge of
the Family Court for the judge's entire term of service as a
judge of the Superior Court under section 431(c) of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
``(d) Reassignment to Other Divisions.--The chief judge may
reassign a judge of the Family Court to any division of the
Superior Court if the chief judge determines that the judge
is unable to continue serving in the Family Court.''.
(b) Plan for Family Court Transition.--
[[Page H5741]]
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia shall prepare and submit to
the President and Congress a transition plan for the Family
Court of the Superior Court, and shall include in the plan
the following:
(A) The chief judge's determination of the number of judges
needed to serve on the Family Court.
(B) The chief judge's determination of the role and
function of the presiding judge of the Family Court.
(C) The chief judge's determination of the number of
magistrate judges of the Family Court needed for appointment
under section 11-1732, District of Columbia Code.
(D) The chief judge's determination of the appropriate
functions of such magistrate judges, together with the
compensation of and other personnel matters pertaining to
such magistrate judges.
(E) A plan for case flow, case management, and staffing
needs (including the needs for both judicial and nonjudicial
personnel) for the Family Court.
(F) A description of how the Superior Court will meet the
requirements of section 11-1104(a), District of Columbia Code
(as added by section 4(a)), regarding the promulgation of
rules to enforce the ``one family, one judge'' requirement
for cases and proceedings in the Family Court.
(G) An analysis of the needs of the Family Court for space,
equipment, and other physical plant requirements, as
determined in consultation with the Administrator of General
Services.
(H) An analysis of the success of the use of magistrate
judges under the expedited appointment procedures established
under section 6(d) in reducing the number of pending actions
and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Family Court
(as described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia, as
amended by subsection (a)).
(I) Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (2), a
proposal and timetable for the disposition of actions and
proceedings pending in the Family Division of the Superior
Court as of the date of the enactment of this Act (together
with actions and proceedings described in section 11-1101,
District of Columbia Code, which were initiated in the Family
Division but remain pending in other Divisions of the
Superior Court as of such date) in a manner consistent with
applicable Federal and District of Columbia law and best
practices, including (but not limited to) best practices
developed by the American Bar Association and the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
(2) Disposition and transfer of pending actions and
proceedings.--The chief judge of the Superior Court shall
take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the
earliest practicable disposition of actions and proceedings
pending in the Family Division of the Superior Court as of
the date of the enactment of this Act (together with actions
and proceedings described in section 11-1101, District of
Columbia Code, which were initiated in the Family Division
but remain pending in other Divisions of the Superior Court
as of such date), but in no event may any such action or
proceeding remain pending longer than 18 months after the
date the chief judge submits the transition plan required
under paragraph (1) to the President and Congress.
(3) Transfer of actions and proceedings.--The chief judge
of the Superior Court shall take such steps as may be
required to ensure that each action or proceeding within the
jurisdiction of the Family Court of the Superior Court (as
described in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as
amended by subsection (a)) which is pending as of the
effective date described in section 9 is transferred or
otherwise assigned to the Family Court immediately upon such
date.
(4) Effective date of implementation of plan.--The chief
judge of the Superior Court may not take any action to
implement the transition plan under this subsection until the
expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date the
chief judge submits the plan to the President and Congress
under paragraph (1).
(c) Transition to Appropriate Number of Judges.--
(1) Analysis by chief judge of superior court.--The chief
judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia shall
include in the transition plan prepared under subsection
(b)--
(A) the chief judge's determination of the number of
individuals serving as judges of the Superior Court who meet
the qualifications for judges of the Family Court of the
Superior Court under section 11-908A, District of Columbia
Code (as added by subsection (a)); and
(B) if the chief judge determines that the number of
individuals described in subparagraph (A) is less than the
number of individuals the chief judge is required to assign
to the Family Court under such section, a request that the
President appoint (in accordance with section 433 of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act) such additional number of
individuals to serve on the Superior Court who meet the
qualifications for judges of the Family Court under such
section as may be required to enable the chief judge to make
the required number of assignments.
(2) One-time appointment of additional judges to superior
court for service on family court.--If the President receives
a request from the chief judge of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia under paragraph (1)(B), the President
(in accordance with section 433 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act) shall appoint additional judges to the
Superior Court who meet the qualifications for judges of the
Family Court in a number equal to the number of additional
appointments so requested by the chief judge, and each judge
so appointed shall be assigned by the chief judge to serve on
the Family Court of the Superior Court.
(3) Role of district of columbia judicial nomination
commission.--For purposes of section 434(d)(1) of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the submission of a
request from the chief judge of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia under paragraph (1)(B) shall be deemed
to create a number of vacancies in the position of judge of
the Superior Court equal to the number of additional
appointments so requested by the chief judge. In carrying out
this paragraph, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination
Commission shall recruit individuals for possible nomination
and appointment to the Superior Court who meet the
qualifications for judges of the Family Court of the Superior
Court.
(4) Judges appointed under one-time appointment procedures
not to count against limit on number of superior court
judges.--Any judge who is appointed to the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia pursuant to the one-time appointment
procedures under this subsection for assignment to the Family
Court of the Superior Court shall be appointed without regard
to the limit on the number of judges of the Superior Court
under section 11-903, District of Columbia Code. Any judge
who is appointed to the Superior Court under any procedures
other than the one-time appointment procedures under this
subsection shall count against such limit, without regard to
whether or not the judge is appointed to replace a judge
appointed under the one-time appointment procedures under
this subsection or is otherwise assigned to the Family Court
of the Superior Court.
(d) Report by Comptroller General.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
prepare and submit to Congress and the chief judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia a report on the
implementation of this Act (including the effect of the
transition plan under subsection (b) on the implementation of
this Act), and shall include in the report the following:
(A) An analysis of the procedures used to make the initial
appointments of judges of the Family Court under this Act and
the amendments made by this Act, including an analysis of the
time required to make such appointments and the effect of the
qualification requirements for judges of the Court (including
requirements relating to the length of service on the Court)
on the time required to make such appointments.
(B) An analysis of the impact of magistrate judges for the
Family Court (including the expedited initial appointment of
magistrate judges for the Court under section 6(d)) on the
workload of judges and other personnel of the Court.
(C) An analysis of the number of judges needed for the
Family Court, including an analysis of how the number may be
affected by the qualification requirements for judges, the
availability of magistrate judges, and other provisions of
this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
(D) An analysis of the timeliness of the resolution and
disposition of pending actions and proceedings required under
the transition plan (as described in subsection (b)(1)(I) and
(b)(2)), including an analysis of the effect of the
availability of magistrate judges on the time required to
resolve and dispose of such actions and proceedings.
(2) Submission to chief judge of superior court.--Prior to
submitting the report under paragraph (1) to Congress, the
Comptroller General shall provide a preliminary version of
the report to the chief judge of the Superior Court and shall
take any comments and recommendations of the chief judge into
consideration in preparing the final version of the report.
(e) Ongoing Reports on Pending Cases and Proceedings.--
(1) In general.--The chief judge of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia shall submit a status report to the
President and Congress on the disposition of actions and
proceedings pending in the Family Division of the Superior
Court as of the date of the enactment of this Act (together
with actions and proceedings described in section 11-1101,
District of Columbia Code, which were initiated in the Family
Division but remain pending in other Divisions of the
Superior Court as of such date) and the extent to which the
Court is in compliance with the requirements of this Act
regarding the timetable for the disposition of such actions
and proceedings.
(2) Timing of reports.--The chief judge of the Superior
Court shall submit the report required under paragraph (1)
not later than 6 months after submitting the transition plan
under subsection (b) and every 6 months thereafter until the
final disposition or transfer to the Family Court of all of
the actions and proceedings described in such paragraph.
(f) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section
11-908(a), District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking
``The
[[Page H5742]]
chief judge'' and inserting ``Subject to section 11-908A, the
chief judge''.
(g) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
9 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 11-908 the
following new item:
``11-908A. Special rules regarding assignment and service of judges of
Family Court.''.
SEC. 4. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF CASES AND PROCEEDINGS IN
FAMILY COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 11, District of
Columbia, is amended by adding at the end the following new
sections:
``Sec. 11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution
``To the greatest extent practicable and safe, cases and
proceedings in the Family Court of the Superior Court shall
be resolved through alternative dispute resolution
procedures, in accordance with such rules as the Superior
Court may promulgate.
``Sec. 11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel
``The Superior Court shall establish standards of practice
for attorneys appointed as counsel in the Family Court of the
Superior Court.
``Sec. 11-1104. Administration
``(a) `One Family, One Judge' Requirement for Cases and
Proceedings.--
``(1) In general.--The Superior Court shall promulgate
rules for the Family Court which require all issues within
the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerning one family or
one child to be decided by one judge, to the greatest extent
practicable, feasible, and lawful.
``(2) Specific requirements.--Under the rules promulgated
by the Superior Court under paragraph (1), to the greatest
extent practicable, feasible, and lawful--
``(A) if an individual who is a party to an action or
proceeding assigned to the Family Court has an immediate
family or household member who is a party to another action
or proceeding assigned to the Family Court, the individual's
action or proceeding shall be assigned to the same judge or
magistrate judge to whom the immediate family member's action
or proceeding is assigned; and
``(B) if an individual who is a party to an action or
proceeding assigned to the Family Court becomes a party to
another action or proceeding assigned to the Family Court,
the individual's subsequent action or proceeding shall be
assigned to the same judge or magistrate judge to whom the
individual's initial action or proceeding is assigned.
``(b) Retention of Jurisdiction Over Cases.--Any action or
proceeding assigned to the Family Court of the Superior Court
shall remain under the jurisdiction of the Family Court until
the action or proceeding is finally disposed. If the judge to
whom the action or proceeding is assigned ceases to serve on
the Family Court prior to the final disposition of the action
or proceeding, the presiding judge of the Family Court shall
ensure that the matter or proceeding is reassigned to a judge
serving on the Family Court, unless there are extraordinary
circumstances, subject to approval and certification by the
presiding judge and based on appropriate documentation in the
record, which demonstrate that a case is nearing permanency
and that changing judges would both delay that goal and
result in a violation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
of 1997 (or an amendment made by such Act).
``(c) Training Program.--
``(1) In general.--The presiding judge of the Family Court
shall carry out an ongoing program to provide training in
family law and related matters for judges of the Family
Court, other judges of the Superior Court, and appropriate
nonjudicial personnel, and shall include in the program
information and instruction regarding the following:
``(A) Child development.
``(B) Family dynamics.
``(C) Relevant Federal and District of Columbia laws.
``(D) Permanency planning principles and practices.
``(E) Recognizing the risk factors for child abuse.
``(F) Any other matters the presiding judge considers
appropriate.
``(2) Use of cross-training.--The program carried out under
this section shall use the resources of lawyers and legal
professionals, social workers, and experts in the field of
child development and other related fields.
``(d) Accessibility of Materials, Services, and
Proceedings; Promotion of `Family-Friendly' Environment.--
``(1) In general.--To the greatest extent practicable, the
chief judge of the Superior Court shall ensure that the
materials and services provided by the Family Court are
understandable and accessible to the individuals and families
served by the Court, and that the Court carries out its
duties in a manner which reflects the special needs of
families with children.
``(2) Location of proceedings.--To the maximum extent
feasible, safe, and practicable, cases and proceedings in the
Family Court shall be conducted at locations readily
accessible to the parties involved.
``(e) Integrated Computerized Case Tracking and Management
System.--The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia
courts under section 11-1703 shall work with the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of
Columbia--
``(1) to ensure that all records and materials of cases and
proceedings in the Family Court are stored and maintained in
electronic format accessible by computers for the use of
judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the
Family Court, and for the use of other appropriate offices of
the District government in accordance with the plan for
integrating computer systems prepared by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia under section 4(c) of the District of
Columbia Family Court Act of 2001;
``(2) to establish and operate an electronic tracking and
management system for cases and proceedings in the Family
Court for the use of judges and nonjudicial personnel of the
Family Court, using the records and materials stored and
maintained pursuant to paragraph (1); and
``(3) to expand such system to cover all divisions of the
Superior Court as soon as practicable.
``Sec. 11-1105. Social services and other related services
``(a) On-Site Coordination of Services and Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia,
in consultation with the chief judge of the Superior Court,
shall ensure that representatives of the appropriate offices
of the District government which provide social services and
other related services to individuals and families served by
the Family Court (including the District of Columbia Public
Schools, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, the
Child and Family Services Agency, the Office of the
Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police Department, the
Department of Health, and other offices determined by the
Mayor) are available on-site at the Family Court to
coordinate the provision of such services and information
regarding such services to such individuals and families.
``(2) Duties of heads of offices.--The head of each office
described in paragraph (1), including the Superintendent of
the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Director of
the District of Columbia Housing Authority, shall provide the
Mayor with such information, assistance, and services as the
Mayor may require to carry out such paragraph.
``(b) Appointment of Social Services Liaison With Family
Court.--The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall appoint
an individual to serve as a liaison between the Family Court
and the District government for purposes of subsection (a)
and for coordinating the delivery of services provided by the
District government with the activities of the Family Court
and for providing information to the judges, magistrate
judges, and nonjudicial personnel of the Court regarding the
services available from the District government to the
individuals and families served by the Court. The Mayor shall
provide on an ongoing basis information to the chief judge of
the Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family
Court regarding the services of the District government which
are available for the individuals and families served by the
Family Court.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Mayor of the District of
Columbia for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.
``Sec. 11-1106. Reports to Congress
``Not later than 90 days after the end of each calendar
year, the chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit a
report to Congress on the activities of the Family Court
during the year, and shall include in the report the
following:
``(1) The chief judge's assessment of the productivity and
success of the use of alternative dispute resolution pursuant
to section 11-1102.
``(2) Goals and timetables to improve the Family Court's
performance in the following year.
``(3) Information on the extent to which the Court met
deadlines and standards applicable under Federal and District
of Columbia law to the review and disposition of actions and
proceedings under the Court's jurisdiction during the year.
``(4) Information on the progress made in finding and
utilizing suitable locations and space for the Family Court.
``(5) Information on any factors which are not under the
control of the Family Court which interfere with or prevent
the Court from carrying out its responsibilities in the most
effective manner possible.
``(6) Based on outcome measures derived through the use of
the information stored in electronic format under section 11-
1104(d), an analysis of the Court's efficiency and
effectiveness in managing its case load during the year,
including an analysis of the time required to dispose of
actions and proceedings among the various categories of the
Court's jurisdiction, as prescribed by applicable law and
best practices, including (but not limited to) best practices
developed by the American Bar Association and the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
``(7) If the Court failed to meet the deadlines, standards,
and outcome measures described in the previous paragraphs, a
proposed remedial action plan to address the failure.''.
(b) Expedited Appeals for Certain Family Court Actions and
Proceedings.--Section 11-721, District of Columbia Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page H5743]]
``(g) Any appeal from an order of the Family Court of the
District of Columbia terminating parental rights or granting
or denying a petition to adopt shall receive expedited review
by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and shall be
certified by the appellant.''.
(c) Plan for Integrating Computer Systems.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall submit to the President and Congress a plan
for integrating the computer systems of the District
government with the computer systems of the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia so that the Family Court of the
Superior Court and the appropriate offices of the District
government which provide social services and other related
services to individuals and families served by the Family
Court of the Superior Court (including the District of
Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing
Authority, the Child and Family Services Agency, the Office
of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Department of Health, and other offices
determined by the Mayor) will be able to access and share
information on the individuals and families served by the
Family Court.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Mayor of the District of Columbia
such sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
11 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new items:
``11-1102. Use of alternative dispute resolution.
``11-1103. Standards of practice for appointed counsel.
``11-1104. Administration.
``11-1105. Social services and other related services.
``11-1106. Reports to Congress.''.
SEC. 5. TREATMENT OF HEARING COMMISSIONERS AS MAGISTRATE
JUDGES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Redesignation of title.--Section 11-1732, District of
Columbia Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``hearing commissioners'' each place it
appears in subsection (a), subsection (b), subsection (d),
subsection (i), subsection (l), and subsection (n) and
inserting ``magistrate judges'';
(B) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it
appears in subsection (b), subsection (c), subsection (e),
subsection (f), subsection (g), subsection (h), and
subsection (j) and inserting ``magistrate judge'';
(C) by striking ``hearing commissioner's'' each place it
appears in subsection (e) and subsection (k) and inserting
``magistrate judge's'';
(D) by striking ``Hearing commissioners'' each place it
appears in subsections (b), (d), and (i) and inserting
``Magistrate judges''; and
(E) in the heading, by striking ``Hearing commissioners''
and inserting ``Magistrate Judges''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 11-1732(c)(3),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking ``, except
that'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
(B) Section 16-924, District of Columbia Code, is amended--
(i) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it
appears and inserting ``magistrate judge''; and
(ii) in subsection (f), by striking ``hearing
commissioner's'' and inserting ``magistrate judge's''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to section 11-
1732 of the table of sections of chapter 17 of title 11, D.C.
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``11-1732. Magistrate judges.''.
(b) Transition Provision Regarding Hearing Commissioners.--
Any individual serving as a hearing commissioner under
section 11-1732 of the District of Columbia Code as of the
date of the enactment of this Act shall serve the remainder
of such individual's term as a magistrate judge, and may be
reappointed as a magistrate judge in accordance with section
11-1732(d), District of Columbia Code, except that any
individual serving as a hearing commissioner as of the date
of the enactment of this Act who was appointed as a hearing
commissioner prior to the effective date of section 11-1732
of the District of Columbia Code shall not be required to be
a resident of the District of Columbia to be eligible to be
reappointed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. SPECIAL RULES FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGES OF FAMILY COURT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 11, District of
Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-1732
the following new section:
``Sec. 11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of
Family Court of the Superior Court
``(a) Use of Social Workers in Advisory Merit Selection
Panel.--The advisory selection merit panel used in the
selection of magistrate judges for the Family Court of the
Superior Court under section 11-1732(b) shall include
certified social workers specializing in child welfare
matters who are residents of the District and who are not
employees of the District of Columbia Courts.
``(b) Special Qualifications.--Notwithstanding section 11-
1732(c), no individual shall be appointed as a magistrate
judge for the Family Court of the Superior Court unless that
individual--
``(1) is a citizen of the United States;
``(2) is an active member of the unified District of
Columbia Bar;
``(3) for the 5 years immediately preceding the appointment
has been engaged in the active practice of law in the
District, has been on the faculty of a law school in the
District, or has been employed as a lawyer by the United
States or District government, or any combination thereof;
``(4) has not fewer than 3 years of training or experience
in the practice of family law; and
``(5) is a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia
and has maintained an actual place of abode in the District
for at least 90 days immediately prior to appointment (or
becomes a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia and
maintains an actual place of abode in the District not later
than 90 days after appointment), and retains such residency
during service as a magistrate.
``(c) Service of Current Hearing Commissioners.--Those
individuals serving as hearing commissioners under section
11-1732 on the effective date of this section who meet the
qualifications described in subsection (b)(4) may request to
be appointed as magistrate judges for the Family Court of the
Superior Court under such section.
``(d) Functions.--A magistrate judge, when specifically
designated by the presiding judge of the Family Court of the
Superior Court, and subject to the rules of the Superior
Court and the right of review under section 11-1732(k), may
perform the following functions:
``(1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take
acknowledgements.
``(2) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and
applicable Federal and District of Columbia law, conduct
hearings, make findings and enter interim and final orders or
judgments in uncontested or contested proceedings within the
jurisdiction of the Family Court of the Superior Court (as
described in section 11-1101), excluding jury trials and
trials of felony cases, as assigned by the presiding judge of
the Family Court.
``(3) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court, enter an
order punishing an individual for contempt, except that no
individual may be detained pursuant to the authority of this
paragraph for longer than 180 days.
``(e) Location of Proceedings.--To the maximum extent
feasible, safe, and practicable, magistrate judges of the
Family Court of the Superior Court shall conduct proceedings
at locations readily accessible to the parties involved.
``(f) Training.--The Family Court of the Superior Court
shall ensure that all magistrate judges of the Family Court
receive training to enable them to fulfill their
responsibilities, including specialized training in family
law and related matters.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 11-1732(a),
District of Columbia Code, is amended by inserting after
``the duties enumerated in subsection (j) of this section''
the following: ``(or, in the case of magistrate judges for
the Family Court of the Superior Court, the duties enumerated
in section 11-1732A(d))''.
(2) Section 11-1732(c), District of Columbia Code, is
amended by striking ``No individual'' and inserting ``Except
as provided in section 11-1732A(b), no individual''.
(3) Section 11-1732(k), District of Columbia Code, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``subsection (j),'' and inserting the
following: ``subsection (j) (or proceedings and hearings
under section 11-1732A(d), in the case of magistrate judges
for the Family Court of the Superior Court),''; and
(B) by inserting after ``appropriate division'' the
following: ``(or, in the case of an order or judgment of a
magistrate judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court,
by a judge of the Family Court)''.
(4) Section 11-1732(l), District of Columbia Code, is
amended by inserting after ``responsibilities'' the
following: ``(subject to the requirements of section 11-
1732A(f) in the case of magistrate judges of the Family Court
of the Superior Court)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District of
Columbia, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 11-1732 the following new item:
``11-1732A. Special rules for magistrate judges of Family Court of the
Superior Court.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Expedited initial appointments.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia shall appoint not more than
5 individuals to serve as magistrate judges for the Family
Division of the Superior Court in accordance with the
requirements of sections 11-1732 and 11-1732A, District of
Columbia Code (as added by subsection (a)).
(B) Appointments made without regard to selection panel.--
Sections 11-1732(b) and 11-1732A(a), District of Columbia
Code (as added by subsection (a)) shall not apply with
respect to any magistrate judge appointed under this
paragraph.
(C) Priority for certain actions and proceedings.--The
chief judge of the Superior
[[Page H5744]]
Court and the presiding judge of the Family Division of the
Superior Court (acting jointly) shall first assign and
transfer to the magistrate judges appointed under this
paragraph actions and proceedings described as follows:
(i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of
abuse or neglect.
(ii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the Family
Division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(iii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is
assigned as of the date of the enactment of this Act is not
assigned to the Family Division.
(3) Special references during transition.--During the
period which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act
and ends on the effective date described in section 9, any
reference to the Family Court of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia in any provision of law added or amended
by this section shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BORDER AGREEMENT WITH
MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.
It is the sense of Congress that the State of Maryland, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia should
promptly enter into a border agreement to facilitate the
timely and safe placement of children in the District of
Columbia's welfare system in foster and kinship homes and
other facilities in Maryland and Virginia.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the District of
Columbia courts such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act and the amendments made by this Act, including sums
necessary for salaries and expenses and capital improvements
for the District of Columbia courthouse facilities.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by sections 2 and 4 shall take effect
on the first date occurring after the date of the enactment
of this Act on which 10 individuals who meet the
qualifications described in section 11-908A, District of
Columbia Code (as added by section 3(a)) are available to be
assigned by the chief judge of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia to serve as associate judges of the
Family Court of the Superior Court (as certified by the chief
judge).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
General Leave
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 2657.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished
colleague, introduced H.R. 2657 on July 26 of this year, 2001. This
bill has the original cosponsorship of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton),
and myself and was reported out of subcommittee.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his hard
work and his sagacity in introducing and persevering with this
important legislation and for being able to include the interests of
numerous stakeholders that will be affected by the bill. I also want to
recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the
Committee on Government Reform, for recognizing the significance of the
legislation and his interest in getting the bill to the floor
expeditiously, as well as the ranking member of the full committee.
This legislation, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001,
is the product of a lot of collaboration, a lot of discussion, and lot
of debate; but I think the final product is one that we can all be
proud of.
The Family Division of the D.C. Superior Court is supposed to be a
last resort, a haven, for abused and neglected children. It should be a
place where caring and responsible adults make decisions that protect
our most vulnerable and our most precious members of society. But too
often, the court has failed in its mission. Cases take too long to
process, families are shuttled from one judge to another, and
unforgivable mistakes are made. The tragedy of Brianna Blackmond, who
was found dead just 2 weeks after a judge removed her from a foster
home and returned Brianna to her troubled mother, is the most obvious
case. It is far from the only one, as we have heard during my
subcommittee's June 26 hearing on the family court.
This legislation takes a huge step forward in improving family court.
It adds more judges to the court, requires new judges to stay for at
least 5 years, provides for ongoing judicial training, and requires the
use of alternative dispute resolution, mediation, and other methods
that will not only help speed up case processing but also will allow
for less adversarial proceedings. It establishes the position of judge
magistrates who will assist the court in reducing its case backlog. It
also promotes the idea of one ``family, one judge,'' meaning that
families will not have to endure the long delays when their cases are
switched from one judicial calendar or judge to another.
But as I have said all along, fixing family court is only one piece
of the puzzle. Any upgrades made by Congress must be accompanied by
real substantial improvements on behalf of the District's Child and
Family Services Agency. I hope my colleagues have had a chance to read
the eye-opening Washington Post series this past week on the agency.
Here are the grim statistics: 229 children in the District died
between 1993 and 2000, even though their family situation had been
brought to the attention of the city's child protective services.
{time} 1030
The Post investigation found that at least 40 of these boys and girls
``lost their lives after government workers failed to take key
preventive action or placed children in unsafe homes or institutions.''
Among the victims are Wesley Lucas, a 10-week-old who died of
dehydration after he was placed in the care of a 69-year-old man who
himself was dying of lung cancer; Eddie Ward, who died at the age of
13; Eddie was alone on a bus and was later found dead in a decaying
house, his body riddled with insect bites; 8-year-old Sylvester Brown,
left in the care of his mentally ill mother, who stabbed him so many
times the medical examiner could not count the number of wounds.
The series goes on to detail some of the underlying causes for these
failures, including inadequate and undertrained employees, high
turnover among social workers, limited foster care options, a lack of
funding, and poor oversight over the agencies responsible for
protecting children.
I know this issue resonates deeply with Mayor Williams. I know he is
pushing for wholesale changes in the area of Child Protective Services,
and, as I have said before, I stand willing to offer any assistance
that I can or our subcommittee can or this Congress can in erasing the
deficiencies of this department.
Until then, what we in Congress can do is pass the District of
Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. This bill will help. It will not
solve all the problems concerning the District's Child Protective
Services, but it will greatly strengthen the Family Court, and that is
a good place to start.
I want to take a few moments again to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), and to recognize the commitment of the staff member of the
gentleman from Texas, Cassie Bevan, who has devoted untold hours in
crafting this legislation, holding meetings with other staff, the
courts, and various interested parties.
I also want to recognize Jon Bouker of the staff of the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton); also my staff director,
Russell Smith, and Victoria Proctor of the staff of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who worked with Cassie Bevan to bring this
bill to the floor. So it has been a collaborative effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2657, a bill which
will be beneficial to the most vulnerable children of the District of
Columbia and their families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2657, the District of
Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. However, I
[[Page H5745]]
want first to thank the current Chair of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and
the former chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis), for their contributions to the bill; also, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) who assisted with this bill, even
though he is not a member of our subcommittee; our full committee
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their
leadership and for expediting this bill, which needed the permission of
the chair and the ranking member to come to the House floor without a
full committee markup after it passed our subcommittee unanimously.
Mr. Speaker, this truncated action was necessary in order to assure
that the bill was ready for the floor in time for the fiscal 2002
appropriation process.
If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, Cassie Bevan and Jon Bouker, Cassie
Bevan of the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Jon
Bouker of my staff, did much of the heavy lifting to get this bill to
the point that we find it today. We very much appreciate their hard
work.
I would particularly like to thank the majority whip of the House,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), whose interest, energy, and
commitment has been an indispensable force behind the Family Court Act.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I are not of the same party,
but he and I share an overriding concern for the children of this
country and for children caught in the District's foster care system.
The concern and involvement of the gentleman from Texas did not end
with this bill, or with seeking to have it reach the floor
expeditiously. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is chiefly
responsible for the millions of dollars that are now part of the D.C.
appropriation that will fund the reforms that this bill mandates.
I also appreciate the support of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
for the return of the agency responsible for foster care in the
District, the Child and Family Services Agency, to the D.C. government
from a failed Federal court receivership.
The need to update the Family Division became a priority as a result
of the tragic death of Brianna Blackmond, an infant who was allowed to
return to her troubled mother without a hearing after it was alleged
that lawyers representing all the parties, the social workers, and the
guardians ad litem all certified that the child should be returned.
Several important investigations followed the child's death,
especially concerning the agency chiefly responsible, the Child and
Family Services Agency, then under a Federal court receivership.
Because a Federal court had jurisdiction, we held hearings in the
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on the District's child
welfare system. My staff and I commenced a detailed investigation of
best practices of family courts and family divisions here and around
the country, and began writing a bill, because D.C. local courts are
Federal courts not under the jurisdiction of the D.C. government.
Meanwhile, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and his staff also
were working on a bill, and we soon began working together to produce a
single product, with support and assistance from our Chair, the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), from the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and other interested Members.
The Family Court Act is the result of this joint effort, the
culmination of a collegial process spanning several months. The
subcommittee held a hearing on the Family Court Act on June 26, 2001,
prior to reporting it unanimously to the full committee.
It must be noted that the D.C. City Council is far more familiar with
the children and families of the city than we in the Congress, and are
best qualified to write such a bill. However, when the Home Rule Act
was passed in 1973, Congress withheld jurisdiction over Federal courts
from the city. The District of Columbia needs to have the same control
of its courts as other cities.
In the meantime, at my request, the council passed a resolution in
support of the reforms in this bill, after scrutinizing it and offering
their own recommendations for changes. We have also worked closely with
Mayor Anthony Williams and Chief Judge Rufus King and the judges of the
Superior Court in writing this bill.
The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 is the first overhaul of our Family
Division since 1970, when it was upgraded to be part of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. The old Family Court, then called
Juvenile Court, was a stand-alone court that had become a place apart,
in effect a ghetto court, to which the city's most troubled children
and families were sent, away from the real judicial system and out of
sight, which left children and families out of mind until the Juvenile
Court was abolished as hopelessly ineffective and poorly funded.
All agree that the Family Division has proved to be a vast
improvement over the Juvenile Court, despite the increasing number of
abused and neglected children, troubled juveniles, and families in
crisis typical of big cities and of foster care systems in rural areas,
suburbs, and cities alike today.
However, no court or other institution should go a full 30 years
without a close examination of its strengths and weaknesses. The Family
Division increasingly has been taxed by intractable societal problems,
and, in addition, must depend on an outside agency, the Child and
Family Services Agency, which only recently had been adjudged so
dysfunctional that it had been taken over by the Federal courts and
placed in receivership.
Our bill incorporates what we found in our investigation to be the
best practices from successful independent family courts and family
divisions as a part of family courts across the country.
These courts have in common several basic reforms: creating an
independent family court or division; providing ample family court
judges to handle family matters; mandating terms for judges in family
court; requiring family court judge magistrate judges and other court
personnel to have training or expertise in family law; requiring
ongoing training of family court judges and other personnel; employing
alternative dispute resolution and mediation in family cases; adhering
to the standard of ``one family one judge'' in family cases; retaining
family cases in the Family Court and the Family Court alone; using
magistrate judges to assist family court judges with their caseloads;
and dedicating special magistrate judges to assist judges with current
pending cases. The D.C. Family Court Act incorporates all of these best
practices.
As important as our bill is, the major problem for children and
families in the District is not the court but the Child and Family
Services Agency. The court needs more resources and it needs
modernization. CFSA needs a complete makeover. Yet, after 6 years in a
family court receivership, CFSA is returning to the District largely
because the receivership failed, not because that agency has been
revitalized.
No matter what we achieve in our Family Division bill, children and
families are unlikely to notice much difference in their lives unless
CFSA is fundamentally changed. Courts are the back end of the process
when all else has failed, the last resort when people must be compelled
to do what they are required to do. Our bill assures that the city has
a full-time staff liaison onsite at the court, but inevitably the court
will be handicapped by the condition of CFSA in the first years of the
agency's return to the District.
Assuring that CFSA and the new Family Court of the Superior Court are
seamless in their response to our children and families is a formidable
challenge for both the city and the court. Because the court has been
generally well run and responsive to children and families, I believe
that with new resources and additional and updated functions, the court
can do the job.
The city's challenge to both reform the CFSA and realign the agency
with the court is more serious. However, Mayor Williams' careful work
in management reform and accountability and the council's diligent
oversight encourages optimism. The mayor's own background as a foster
child will surely encourage dedication.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that although I strongly
support
[[Page H5746]]
this bill, the speed with which we have had to bring the bill to the
floor precluded me from offering several amendments to sharpen various
provisions of the act. These amendments are important to ensure, for
example, that the necessary work of disposing of a large volume of
pending cases and continuing intake of new cases coming into the new
Family Court does not overwhelm the court while it meets timetables
mandated in the bill.
In addition, my amendments will ensure that the jurisdiction of the
court's successful domestic violence unit is not undermined by the
bill.
It is also critical to strengthen language in the bill calling on
Maryland and Virginia to enter foster care agreements with the District
to ensure rapid placement of our children, without undue expense to our
State partners or harmful delay to our children.
We have all agreed that these and other matters should be discussed
with our Senate partners as we move forward in our negotiation to
produce a consensus bill. The Senate has been wonderfully cooperative
and collaborative with us in all aspects of this bill.
I want to once again thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for
his tireless work and partnership with me on this bill, and the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their special efforts on this important
piece of legislation.
I urge all of our colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) for her wonderful comments, but even beyond that, for the
work that has been done through the years to make this bill possible.
As was mentioned time and time again, this has been a collaborative
effort. But all collaborative efforts have to have a leader. They have
to have somebody who is going to guide, watch over, and make sure and
bring the parties together.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is that person and that
leader.
(Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DeLay. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me, and for her kind remarks. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington,
D.C. (Ms. Norton) for her kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first day of the rest of reform in the child
welfare system in Washington, D.C. This is not the end of reform, as
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has so
eloquently stated. This is an ongoing effort. It is going to take
everybody in Washington, D.C., as well as in Congress, to do what is
necessary to save the kids of the District.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the District of Columbia Family Court Act
of 2001 is to save lives of children in the District. We do this by
creating a specialized Family Court that will allow judges to spend
more time hearing, reviewing, and monitoring the accomplishments of
abused and neglected children.
The work that has been done by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella),
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is exemplary, and it
has taken a long, hard road to get to where we are in putting this
legislation together.
{time} 1045
I also want the thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt), who has had his input and his support for this
legislation, obviously.
I too want to thank the real movers and shakers of this House. And
that is the staff, John Bouker, staff member of the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton); Russell Smith and Heea Vazirani-
Fales of the office of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella);
Victoria Proctor and Melissa Wogciak of the office of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis); and Mark Agrast of the office of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Most importantly, the driving force for all of us is a woman that is
really incredible in her knowledge of what children need, especially
abused and neglected children and their needs, is Dr. Casie Bevan on my
staff. Without her leadership, none of this would have happened.
Last week, The Washington Post ran a series of articles under the
headline ``Protected Children Died as Government Did Little.'' The Post
attributed 40 child deaths in the past decade, including Brianna
Blackmond, to the District's failed child protection system. This
system includes the judges and the Superior Court as well as the social
workers and the police. Our bill aims to put the need of the children
for safety and permanency first. And here is how we do it:
We require that the judges be trained before they serve on Family
Court. We mandate that judges sit on the Family Court bench for 5
years, long enough to become effective, and we insist that every judge
that serves on the Family Court be a volunteer.
Our bill creates a separate pool of judges to set on Family Court
with the desired training and expertise necessary to serve. Training is
critical for judges who have to decide if and when a home is too
dangerous for a child to remain there or safe enough for a child to be
returned.
Meaningful change cannot happen without committed judges. That is why
I believe that 5-year terms are a key measure. A 5-year term on Family
Court increases the chance that a judge really wants to serve on this
bench and is not just serving time.
Today, judges who rotate off the family division bench take cases
with them. Our bill ends that practice. A specialized family court, by
its very nature, requires that all family cases remain in this court
until they are closed. The ``one judge, one family'' concept is central
to real reform. Only a judge who knows the full history surrounding a
child's family and reasons for placement will be better able to
consider the child's best interests.
Our bill provides resources to hire more judges and magistrate judges
in order to decrease the number of children seen by each judicial
officer. With this change, more time can be spent with the children and
their families to identify their need and to monitor progress.
Funds are provided under this bill to upgrade and integrate the
computer systems at the courts and at the Child and Family Services
agency so that children do not become lost in the system, like they
have been in the past.
Finally, our bill authorizes funds for expanding courtroom facilities
to accommodate the increased number of judges and magistrates hired to
hear these cases. We hope this expansion will lead to closer monitoring
of the cases and increased judicial oversight. Too many cries have gone
unanswered.
I cannot say enough about the work that has been done on behalf of
the children of the District in pulling this bill together. I greatly
appreciate everyone's input and everybody's work. The children will
benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I am attaching a section-by-section analysis of my
statement containing my comments and summarizing congressional intent
supporting each provision. I insert this for the Record so that the
intent of Congress in passing this legislation is clear and
unequivocal.
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
purpose
To redesignate the Family Division as a Family Court of the
Superior Court. To recruit and retain trained and experienced
judges to serve in the Family Court.
Intent: This legislation is intended to reorganize the
Family Court so that more time will be spent on making
expeditious and informed decisions that affect the lives of
the children brought before the court. With this legislation
will come specialized judges, who volunteer to serve on the
Family Court and to sit on the bench for 5 years, so that
they can gain the experience necessary to make good decisions
that will impact the lives and the futures of the children
that come before them.
Section 1. Short title
Title: ``District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001''.
Section 2. Redesignation of Family Division as Family Court
of the Superior Court
The Family Division of the Superior Court is renamed the
Family Court of the Superior Court.
[[Page H5747]]
Intent: Note that we considered creating a separate court
but were concerned about the additional expenses for
administration and facilities that a separate court would
create. Expenses that we could not tie to improved outcomes
for abused children and their families. However, the intent
here is not to merely rename the family division but to
establish a Family Court that will make the safety and
permanency of abused children its highest and exclusive
priority. This is accomplished by reforming the way the
Family Court is organized to create specialized pools for the
recruitment of judges, to lengthen the judicial term to five
years, and to increase the training these family court judges
receive. The reorganization includes expanding the judicial
powers of the magistrate judges to close cases.
The Chief Judge of Superior Court assigns a judge as the
Presiding Judge of Family Court.
Intent: While the assignment of a Presiding Judge is left
to the Chief Judge, the intent of Congress here is that the
presiding Judge be given sufficient authority so that he can
be held accountable for the actions of the Family Court.
Congress considers the role of the Presiding Judge to be
significantly different from the current role and expects to
see this difference articulated in the transition plan.
The Family Court will have broad and exclusive jurisdiction
over all family related matters.
Section 3. Appointment of judges; number and qualifications
The number of judges to serve on Family Court will be
determined by the chief judge under a transition plan to be
submitted to the President and Congress.
Intent: This issue of the number of judges is crucial to
the success of the reforms. Unfortunately, to date DC
Superior Court has not provided an empirically based workload
analysis to justify an increase in Family Court judges.
Moreover, it is uncertain the effect the magistrate judges
will have on the caseload but Congress expects that the
magistrate judges will be able to bring a significant number
of cases to resolution. Again, we look to the transition plan
to provide the details on the number of judges needed to
serve.
The number of judges on the Family Court must not exceed
15.
Intent: Note that this number represents an increase of 3
judges as requested by the Chief Judge. Again, we look
forward to the transition plan for justification.
Special qualifications are established for judges who
volunteer to serve in Family Court (training or expertise in
family law, commitment to serving for full term and
willingness to participate in ongoing training).
Intent: The qualifications of the Family Court judges are
intimately linked to reforming the courts. While Congress did
not quantify the years of training or expertise, we did
envision that the training or expertise be established and
verifiable. It is absolutely essential that the candidate
commits to serving the full term as this indicates that the
candidate wants to sit on the Family Court bench and is not
using the initial placement onto the bench as a stepping-
stone merely to further his/her career. The judges'
willingness to participate in ongoing training indicates his/
her dedication to serving the children and families under
his/her jurisdiction.)
Judges currently serving on Family Court are required to
serve for a minimum of three years (the time consecutively
served in Family Court counts towards the three year term.)
Intent: This provision grandfathers the judges currently on
the bench to three-year terms. The intent here is to ensure
that judges currently sitting who want to serve on the Family
Court be required to spend the minimum of three years to
provide the children under their care with the continuity and
the focus that each of their cases deserve.
Judges currently serving on Superior Court are required to
serve for a minimum of three years (the time outside of the
Family Division does not count toward the three year term).
Intent: While this provision allows judges outside of the
Family Court to voluntarily return to the Family Court it
requires that the judges serve for a minimum of three years.
Again, this provision grandfathers only those judges who meet
the requirements and voluntarily request to transfer to
Family Court.
New Judges assigned to the Family Court are required to
serve for a term of five years.
Intent: A review of the length of terms in Family Courts
nationwide indicates that only three of the 13 states with
Family Courts serve less than five years. Congress strongly
endorses this provision as indicating a judicial commitment
to the families and children in his/her court and his/her
willingness to become an expert in this specialty of law to
benefit those that come before the bench. It is envisioned
that the new judges will be recruited because of their
interest and expertise and that they will volunteer for
this pool because of their dedication. The reforms that
Congress anticipates hinge on the recruitment and
retention of judges with training and expertise in family
law who serve for five years. Five years will allow the
judge sufficient time on the bench to become the true
expert that is needed in these challenging cases.
A judge is permitted to serve on Family Court for the
entire term of service that is 15 years.
Intent: The purpose of this provision is to allow a judge
who wants to serve on the Family Court for his/her entire
career to do so.
Family Court judges may be reassigned for additional terms
of service as the chief judge may provide.
The chief judge may reassign a judge of the Family Court if
the determination is made that the judge is unable to
continue serving in the Family Court.
Intent: This provision allows for the removal of a judge
from the Family Court bench when this judge is unable to
continue because to continue would not be in the best
interests of the children under his jurisdiction. This
reassignment must not be made to advance the judges' career
but must be made because the judges' ability to serve the
Family Court is questioned.
Within 90 days, the chief judge must submit a transition
plan for the Family Court to the President and to Congress
containing the following: (A) a determination of the number
of judges needed to serve on the Family Court; (B) a
determination of the role and function of the presiding judge
of the Family Court; (C) a determination of the number of
magistrate judges needed for appointment; (D) a determination
of the appropriate functions of the magistrate judges
together with compensation and other personnel matters; (E) a
plan for a case flow, case management, and staffing needs
(both judicial and non-judicial); (F) a description of how
the Superior Court will implement the ``one family one
judge'' requirement for cases and proceedings in the Family
Court; (G) an analysis of the needs of the Family Court for
space, equipment, and other physical requirements; (H) an
analysis of the effectiveness of expediting the hiring of
magistrates to handle laws and best practices.
Intent: It is critical that this transition plan be based
on an empirical analysis of the workload, the equipment needs
and the adequacy of the facility. This is meant to be a
``needs assessment'' plan based on data analysis. The plan
must specify the court's budgetary assumptions. How the
various aspects in the plan translate to improved outcomes
for the children and families served must be clearly noted.
The plan must detail the specific improvements in the
handling of child abuse and neglect cases that will become
possible with the increased funding proposed.
The chief judge must take action to provide for the
earliest practicable return or resolution of all cases
carried by judges outside of the Family Division to the
Family Court but this must take place no later than 18 months
from the submission of the transition plan.
Intent: While the statute allows the chief judge 18 months
to complete the return of all cases, the cases should start
returning to the Family Court as soon as the magistrate
judges are hired.
The chief judge must ensure that cases pending within the
jurisdiction of the Family Court as of the date of enactment
are immediately assigned to the Family Court.
The chief judge may not take any action to implement the
transition plan until Congress and the President have 30 days
to review.
Intent: The purpose here is to ensure that Congress and the
President have time to review the plan.
The chief judge must include in the transition plan an
analysis of how many judges currently on the bench in
Superior Court meet the qualifications for judges of Family
Court. If the chief judge determines that the number is less
than the number needed to serve on Family Court a request
must be made to the President for the appointment of
additional judges for Family Court.
Intent: At the time of passage in the House, it is unclear
how many judges sitting on the bench will volunteer for the
Family Court or qualify under this proposal to sit.
Therefore, it is important that the chief judge only after
review make a request for a specified number of additional
judges.
After receiving the request from the chief judge the
President must appoint additional qualified judges to serve
on the Family Court. The District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Commission, upon the request from the chief judge,
must provide nominees to fill these vacancies in the Superior
Court equal to the number of judicial appointments requested
by the chief judge and must recruit individuals for
nomination to the Superior Court who meet the qualifications
for judges of Family Court.
For the purpose of making the transition only the initial
appointments to Family Court will be made without regard to
the limit on the number of Superior Court Judges.
Intent: The appointments without regard to the limit on the
number of Superior Court judges are one-time only.
The Comptroller General is required to submit a report
analyzing the impact of these reforms on the time required to
make appointments to the Family Court, on the impact of the
magistrate judges on the workload of judges, on how the
number of judges may be affected by the qualification
requirements for judges, and, on the timeliness of the
resolution of cases.
The chief judge must submit a status report every six
months to the President and Congress on the backlog of cases
that are still outside of the Family Court.
Intent: While the chief judge has 18 months to return all
the cases to the Family Court,
[[Page H5748]]
Congress requires the chief judge to provide a status report
every six months on the progress of the return of these cases
to the Family Court.
Section 4. Improving administration of cases and proceedings
in Family Court
To the greatest extent practicable, cases must be resolved
through alternative dispute resolution procedures.
The Superior Court must establish standards of practice for
attorneys appointed to Family Court.
The Superior Court must promulgate rules for the Family
Court requiring ``one family, one judge'' so that all issues
concerning one family or one child are decided by one judge,
to the greatest extent practicable.
Intent: Extensive testimony was taken regarding the
importance of this provision. While the provision does not
prohibit the establishment of separate calendars, the intent
here is that children see the same judge while their cases
remain open and before the court. The rationale behind one
judge/one child is to provide the child with judicial
continuity so that the approach to the case and to the child
is seamless and comprehensive.
Family members who have actions pending in family court
will be assigned to the same judge or magistrate judge.
Intent: This provision recognizes the importance of keeping
all matters involving one family or household before the same
judge. When the members of the same family have actions
before the same judge this enhances the judges understanding
of not just the particular case before him but of the family
dynamics that impact each family member in each case.
Children who have actions pending in family court will be
assigned to the same judge or magistrate judge.
Intent: While this provision does not prohibit separate
calendars the provision envisions that separate calendars
will not be routinely used which would necessitate children's
cases being heard by different judges. The drafters have
taken testimony that there are no due process violations in
implementing the one judge/one child plan.
All cases will remain in Family Court until final
disposition (even if the judge involved moves out of the
Family Court) unless there are extraordinary circumstances
which show that a case is nearing permanency and that
changing judges would both delay that goal and result in a
violation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
Intent: Cases that remain outside of Family Court are meant
to be truly extraordinary circumstances and the drafters do
not envision more than 10% of these cases falling within this
category.
The presiding judge of the Family Court must implement a
Family Law training program for judges, magistrates and
nonjudicial personnel to include among other things: child
development, family dynamics and recognizing the risk factors
in child abuse.
The training program is required to use social workers and
experts in child development as well as lawyers and legal
professionals.
The presiding judge of the Family Court must ensure that
materials and services be understandable and accessible to
the families served and that the environment be family
friendly.
Cases and proceedings in the Family Court must be conducted
at locations readily accessible to the parties involved to
the extent practicable.
The Executive Officer of the court must provide for an
integrated computerized case tracking and management system
to: (1) ensure that all records, materials and proceedings be
computerized; (2) establish an integrated tracking system for
cases and proceedings to be used by judicial and nonjudicial
personnel; and (3) expand when feasible the integrated
computer system to all divisions of Superior Court.
Social Services will be coordinated on site with the Mayor
ensuring that the appropriate offices are represented.
Intent: Coordination between social service agencies and
the courts is absolutely essential to the success of these
reforms. The drafters remain concerned about the lack of
coordination to date and have inserted this provision to hold
both the Mayor and the Chief Judge accountable for providing
coordination.
The Mayor must ensure that representatives of the relevant
agencies be on-site to coordinate social services and provide
information to the judges about the availability of services.
Intent: The judges must be informed by social services
representatives about the availability and quality of
prevention, intervention and placement services available to
serve the children moving through the court system.
The Mayor must appoint a Social Services Liaison with
Family Court for coordinating the delivery of services.
The chief judge must submit an annual report to Congress on
the activities of the Family Court to include: (1) an
assessment of the alternative dispute resolution process; (2)
goals and timetables to improve Family Court performance; (3)
information on the extent to which the Court is in compliance
with relevant Federal and District of Columbia laws; (4)
information on the progress made in finding suitable
locations and space for the Family Court; (5) information on
any factors which are not under the control of the Family
Court which interfere with or prevent the Court from carrying
out its responsibilities; (6) an analysis of the Court's
efficiency and effectiveness in managing its caseload; and,
(7) any proposed remedial action plan needed to address any
failures.
Intent: This report must be comprehensive to allow Congress
to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. This report must
provide sufficient empirical evidence to document the extent
of progress.
Appeals terminating parental rights or petitions to adopt
are required to receive expedited review by the DC Court of
Appeals.
Within six months after enactment, the Mayor and the Courts
are required to submit a plan to develop an integrated
computer system that will interface with appropriate
agencies.
Intent: the Mayor and the Courts have to work together to
develop this integrated computer system that meets the
requirements of both the social service system and the Court
system to track and monitor children as they come into and
move through the various systems.
Funds are to be provided to the Mayor to carry out these
requirements.
Section 5 Hearing Commissioners renamed magistrate judges.
Hearing commissioners are renamed magistrate judges.
Section 6. Special rules for magistrate judges of Family
Court of the Superior Court
The advisory merit selection panel used to select
magistrate judges must include certified social workers
specializing in child welfare matters.
Magistrate judges must have no fewer than 5 years
practicing law in the District and no less than 3 years of
training or experience in family law. Magistrate judges will
be appointed for 4 years.
The Board of Judges may suspend or remove a magistrate
judge.
Magistrate judges will: administer oaths, establish and
enforce child support orders, make findings and enter final
judgments. Contempt powers will also be afforded to the
magistrates.
Intent: Magistrate judges are given expanded powers to hear
and resolve cases to expedite the handling and timing of
decisions.
Magistrate judges must conduct proceedings at readily
accessible locations to the extent feasible.
Magistrate judges must be trained in family law.
The initial appointment of no more than five magistrate
judges will be expedited.
Intent: This provision ensures that upon enactment, the
backlog of cases pending outside of the family court will be
addressed.
Cases involving allegations of maltreatment that are at
least two years in the system and are currently handled by
judges outside of the Family Division will be given priority
to be referred to the magistrate judges for expedited
handling.
Intent: This provision is an attempt to triage the cases in
the backlog so that the oldest cases are reviewed first.
Section 7. Sense of Congress regarding border agreements with
Maryland and Virginia
Congress resolves that DC, Maryland and Virginia should
promptly enter into border agreements to facilitate timely
placement of DC children.
Intent: Testimony has been received that indicates that
problems with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children are causing lengthy delays in the placement of
children. A border agreement would facilitate the movement of
children across state lines to ensure timely placement.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Special magistrate judges will be hired immediately to
handle the backlog of cases pending outside of the Family
Division.
The Act becomes effective as soon as ten judges who meet
the qualifications are appointed to serve on the Family
Court.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has been very helpful in assisting us
on this bill because of his own interest in the children of this
country; and I want to especially thank a member of his staff, Mark
Agrast, who was also very helpful to all of us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. I caught the earliest flight possible from Boston today
because I felt it was important to be here to commend the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their resolve and commitment to achieve a
result that would be truly effective. This is truly remarkable, and
they deserve our gratitude.
It is also, I suggest, a good day for children, not just here in the
District of Columbia but all over America. Given the events of the past
week, it is good to stand here and to say it is a good day. It is a
good day. As the majority whip indicated, today is a new day for
reform. Maybe this bill is also a new day for the children and the
future of America.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentlewoman from the
[[Page H5749]]
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) have worked together with the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for months, through many drafts, to reach
agreement. It is honestly a tribute to their shared concern for
children, which they do share, and particularly the children of the
District, that they have been able to put aside the usual political
differences and work together to achieve a well-crafted, thoughtful
bill that I am confident will make a huge difference in the lives of
many, many children and their families.
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of this legislation, and
it has been alluded to by the gentlewoman from Maryland, the gentleman
from Texas and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, but it
cannot be stated often enough, they would only have to read the
shocking series which ran in The Washington Post. Those articles
documented the fate of 180 of the 229 children who died in the District
of Columbia between 1993 and the year 2000 after their families came to
the attention of the District's child protection system. We cannot,
again, say it often enough. According to The Post, at least 40 of these
children died because government workers placed them in unsafe homes or
institutions or otherwise failed to take timely action to protect them.
It is too late to do anything to save those children, but this
legislation will help ensure that the children currently in the system
and those who come after them do not suffer a similar fate. I genuinely
believe that this bill will do more. The children who never had a
family, who have never known what the term ``home'' really means, I
would suggest never really have a break in life, and often end up in
our prison systems.
There has been study after study which corroborate the relationship
between crime and the dysfunctional family. One study by a professor at
the University of Rhode Island, Professor Gellis, who examined 50
inmates who were serving time in the San Quentin institution in
California, revealed that of those 50 inmates serving time for armed
robbery, every single one of them was a legacy of a dysfunctional
family, had been abused or neglected as children. What better anti-
crime initiative than this legislation before us?
Now, I want to join with my colleagues who have already sung the
praises of the staff members that have been involved in this. I want to
make special mention of Cassie Bevan, on the staff of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and John Bouker, on the staff of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
This is not the first time I have worked with Cassie. We have worked
together on a number of other children's issues, especially in
conjunction with intercountry adoption. I have learned to trust her
judgment, to value her tenacity, and to admire her deep commitment to
the well-being of children everywhere and her love for children in
need. I would also note that the same is true of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay). And this is truly profound and inspirational for
many of us.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his
comments and the fact that in working with him I know of his concern
about human rights and children's rights and applaud him.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), someone who has been a
leader in helping to craft this bill through the years and my
predecessor as chairman of the District of Columbia authorizing
committee.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding me this time. And I rise in strong support of H.R. 2657, the
District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, which will create
structural and management reforms so the Family Court can better serve
the needs of the city's vulnerable children.
The bill addresses the recruitment and retention of family court
judges and mandates longer judicial terms of service in the Family
Court to ensure continuity in the handling of cases. Additionally, it
imposes the critically important ``one family, one judge'' requirement
for the Family Court.
After the tragic death of 23-month-old Brianna Blackmond in January
of 2000, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia held two hearings
to review the status of the Child and Family Services Administration
and to determine how we could prevent further tragedies. It was clear
from those hearings that reforming CFSA alone would be insufficient.
The court plays an integral role in the D.C.'s child welfare system and
has to be overhauled as well.
Anyone who has been following The Washington Post's coverage of the
District's most vulnerable residents understands this is very complex
and challenging, and will require a comprehensive response. It is
imperative that the Family Court judges have the knowledge, the
training, and the administrative processes in place so that the best
interests of the children in the City's child welfare system can be
served. This bill puts the court on the right track. It provides
strategic management tools the court needs to accomplish key reform
objectives.
Decisions the Family Court judges make often have a lasting impact on
children's lives. We do not want judges to feel burdened by service in
the Family Court. This assignment should never be a form of punishment.
That is why this bill encourages volunteerism and appoints the Family
Court judges who have committed themselves to the practice of family
law. To ensure greater continuity, judges need to serve on the Family
Court longer than the 1 year they have typically served now. Therefore,
the term of service on the Family Court for new judicial appointees for
D.C. Superior Court is 5 years.
Additionally, the ``one family, one judge'' requirement will allow
Family Court judges to handle cases from intake through final
disposition. They will then have a full history of the child's family
dynamics to help them make better informed decisions regarding the
safety and the welfare of the child.
H.R. 2657 mandates the immediate return of all family law cases to
the Family Court. The court must eliminate the backlog and manage cases
within the time frame established by the adoption of the Safe Families
Act. To facilitate case management, the bill directs the court to
integrate its computer system so that judges, magistrate judges, and
nonjudicial personnel will have access to all pending cases related to
a child and his or her family. The bill requires the D.C. government to
integrate the computer systems with those of the Superior Court to
improve communication in the sharing of information about families
served by the court.
In addition to the training requirement for judges, it is important
that they are well informed about critical social services available to
the children and the families they serve. By requiring a social
services liaison and representatives from D.C. agencies to be on site,
our bill gives judges the tools to help children and families access
much-needed programs and services.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their leadership and dedication
on this issue.
H.R. 2657 mandates critical and long overdue reforms to the current
family division of the D.C. Superior Court, and I urge all my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for all of the
work that went into this bill in collaboration with the others.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), co-chair of the Children's Caucus.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2657
and add my deep appreciation to the distinguished gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia and for her ability to work across party lines,
and to my colleague from Texas, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
the majority
[[Page H5750]]
whip, who has shown, as has the representative from the District of
Columbia, a deep and abiding caring for the children of this Nation and
of this community, and to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella),
whose task and commitment in this process were necessary to see this
legislation move forward.
My reason for wanting to add my comments is to say to Brianna
Blackmond that we have not forgotten her, and to be able to say that
this legislation brings honor to lawyers who practice in family courts
and to the discipline of family law and family courts. This system now
will develop in the District of Columbia judges who will have long-
lasting expertise and commitment to the issues dealing with families,
and a D.C. bar that is further enhanced because their focus is on the
family court system and families. That will help put a dent in the
tragedy of 180 of the District of Columbia's children from 1993 to 2000
that died after the families came to the attention of the District's
Child and Family Services.
Mr. Speaker, the important aspect of this is that they came to the
attention of that agency, but the connection was lost so those children
may have been placed back in homes or back in foster care that was not
good for them and resulted in their death.
Obviously we know that abused children result in juvenile delinquents
and incarcerated adults. With a family court tracking the system of
many of our States, we will have a professional court that deals
specifically with these issues. This has been a tumultuous time. We
have seen in the last week the trauma on families and the trauma on
children across the Nation who may have lost their parents during the
tragedies of September 11.
We are making a commitment today to provide another vehicle to
nurture our children and protect them, as we will do throughout these
days for children who suffered through September 11, 2001.
I applaud the proponents of this legislation. I believe this will
make the family court in the District of Columbia a very prominent
example of how we can save lives and track families and how we can
intervene appropriately in order to provide the most nurturing and
supportive system for our children.
Mr. Speaker, I add my applause for those who have supported and will
help pass this legislation.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate this is a terrific bill. It is a gleam of
light in a very difficult time. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) for his leadership and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). I
thank my colleagues who spoke, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and all of the
people who will be voting for this bill. Indeed, it could not happen if
we did not have great staff.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the names of some of the staff: Casie Bevan,
Russell Smith, Heea Vazirani-Fales, John Bouker, Victoria Proctor,
Melissa Wogciak, and all of the others who have toiled to bring this
about. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2657, a bill that will be
beneficial to the most vulnerable children of the District of Columbia
and their families and strengthen our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2657.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________