[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.

                          ____________________