[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6772-H6775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          D.C. COURTS AND PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE ACT OF 2011

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 1379) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, 
to revise certain administrative authorities of the District of 
Columbia courts, and to authorize the District of Columbia Public 
Defender Service to provide professional liability insurance for 
officers and employees of the Service for claims relating to services 
furnished within the scope of employment with the Service.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 1379

       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 ``D.C. Courts and Public 
     Defender Service Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITIES OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

       (a) Permitting Judicial Conference on Biennial Basis; 
     Attendance of Magistrate Judges.--Section 11-744, District of 
     Columbia Official Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``annually'' and 
     inserting ``biennially or annually'';
       (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``active judges'' 
     and inserting ``active judges and magistrate judges'';
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``Every judge'' and 
     inserting ``Every judge and magistrate judge''; and
       (4) in the third sentence, by striking ``Courts of 
     Appeals'' and inserting ``Court of Appeals''.
       (b) Emergency Authority To Toll or Delay Judicial 
     Proceedings.--
       (1) Proceedings in superior court.--
       (A) In general.--Subchapter III of Chapter 9 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-947. Emergency authority to toll or delay 
       proceedings.

       ``(a) Tolling or Delaying Proceedings.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event of a natural disaster or 
     other emergency situation requiring the closure of Superior 
     Court or rendering it impracticable for the United States or 
     District of Columbia Government or a class of litigants to 
     comply with deadlines imposed by any Federal or District of 
     Columbia law or rule that applies in the Superior Court, the 
     chief judge of the Superior Court may exercise emergency 
     authority in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Scope of authority.--(A) The chief judge may enter 
     such order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or 
     otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by 
     otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may be 
     appropriate for any class of cases pending or thereafter 
     filed in the Superior Court.
       ``(B) The authority conferred by this section extends to 
     all laws and rules affecting criminal and juvenile 
     proceedings (including, pre-arrest, post-arrest, pretrial, 
     trial, and post-trial procedures) and civil, family, domestic 
     violence, probate and tax proceedings.
       ``(3) Unavailability of chief judge.--If the chief judge of 
     the Superior Court is absent or disabled, the authority 
     conferred by this section may be exercised by the judge 
     designated under section 11-907(a) or by the Joint Committee 
     on Judicial Administration.
       ``(4) Habeas corpus unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       ``(b) Criminal Cases.--In exercising the authority under 
     this section for criminal cases, the chief judge shall 
     consider the ability of the United States or District of 
     Columbia Government to investigate, litigate, and process 
     defendants during and after the emergency situation, as well 
     as the ability of criminal defendants as a class to prepare 
     their defenses.
       ``(c) Issuance of Orders.--The United States Attorney for 
     the District of Columbia or the Attorney General for the 
     District of Columbia or the designee of either may request 
     issuance of an order under this section, or the chief judge 
     may act on his or her own motion.
       ``(d) Duration of Orders.--An order entered under this 
     section may not toll or extend a time deadline for a period 
     of more than 14 days, except that if the chief judge 
     determines that an emergency situation requires additional 
     extensions of the period during which deadlines are tolled or 
     extended, the chief judge may, with the consent of the Joint 
     Committee on Judicial Administration, enter additional orders 
     under this section in order to further toll or extend such 
     time deadline.
       ``(e) Notice.--Upon issuing an order under this section, 
     the chief judge--
       ``(1) shall make all reasonable efforts to publicize the 
     order, including, when possible, announcing the order on the 
     District of Columbia Courts Web site; and
       ``(2) shall send notice of the order, including the reasons 
     for the issuance of the order, to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.

[[Page H6773]]

       ``(f) Required Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     expiration of the last extension or tolling of a time period 
     made by the order or orders relating to an emergency 
     situation, the chief judge shall submit a brief report to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on 
     Judicial Administration describing the orders, including--
       ``(1) the reasons for issuing the orders;
       ``(2) the duration of the orders;
       ``(3) the effects of the orders on litigants; and
       ``(4) the costs to the court resulting from the orders.
       ``(g) Exceptions.--The notice under subsection (e)(2) and 
     the report under subsection (f) are not required in the case 
     of an order that tolls or extends a time deadline for a 
     period of less than 14 days.''.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of chapter 9 
     of title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end of the items relating to subchapter III 
     the following:

``11-947. Emergency authority to toll or delay proceedings.''.

       (2) Proceedings in court of appeals.--
       (A) In general.--Subchapter III of chapter 7 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 11-745. Emergency authority to toll or delay 
       proceedings.

       ``(a) Tolling or Delaying Proceedings.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event of a natural disaster or 
     other emergency situation requiring the closure of the Court 
     of Appeals or rendering it impracticable for the United 
     States or District of Columbia Government or a class of 
     litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any Federal or 
     District of Columbia law or rule that applies in the Court of 
     Appeals, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals may exercise 
     emergency authority in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Scope of authority.--The chief judge may enter such 
     order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or 
     otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by 
     otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may be 
     appropriate for any class of cases pending or thereafter 
     filed in the Court of Appeals.
       ``(3) Unavailability of chief judge.--If the chief judge of 
     the Court of Appeals is absent or disabled, the authority 
     conferred by this section may be exercised by the judge 
     designated under section 11-706(a) or by the Joint Committee 
     on Judicial Administration.
       ``(4) Habeas corpus unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       ``(b) Issuance of Orders.--The United States Attorney for 
     the District of Columbia or the Attorney General for the 
     District of Columbia or the designee of either may request 
     issuance of an order under this section, or the chief judge 
     may act on his or her own motion.
       ``(c) Duration of Orders.--An order entered under this 
     section may not toll or extend a time deadline for a period 
     of more than 14 days, except that if the chief judge 
     determines that an emergency situation requires additional 
     extensions of the period during which deadlines are tolled or 
     extended, the chief judge may, with the consent of the Joint 
     Committee on Judicial Administration, enter additional orders 
     under this section in order to further toll or extend such 
     time deadline.
       ``(d) Notice.--Upon issuing an order under this section, 
     the chief judge--
       ``(1) shall make all reasonable efforts to publicize the 
     order, including, when possible, announcing the order on the 
     District of Columbia Courts Web site; and
       ``(2) shall send notice of the order, including the reasons 
     for the issuance of the order, to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(e) Required Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     expiration of the last extension or tolling of a time period 
     made by the order or orders relating to an emergency 
     situation, the chief judge shall submit a brief report to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on 
     Judicial Administration describing the orders, including--
       ``(1) the reasons for issuing the orders;
       ``(2) the duration of the orders;
       ``(3) the effects of the orders on litigants; and
       ``(4) the costs to the court resulting from the orders.
       ``(f) Exceptions.--The notice under subsection (d)(2) and 
     the report under subsection (e) are not required in the case 
     of an order that tolls or extends a time deadline for a 
     period of less than 14 days.''.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of chapter 7 
     of title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end of the items relating to subchapter III 
     the following:

``11-745. Emergency authority to toll or delay proceedings.''.

       (c) Permitting Agreements To Provide Services on a 
     Reimbursable Basis to Other District Government Offices.--
       (1) In general.--Section 11-1742, District of Columbia 
     Official Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) To prevent duplication and to promote efficiency and 
     economy, the Executive Officer may enter into agreements to 
     provide the Mayor of the District of Columbia with equipment, 
     supplies, and services and credit reimbursements received 
     from the Mayor for such equipment, supplies, and services to 
     the appropriation of the District of Columbia Courts against 
     which they were charged.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2010 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year.

     SEC. 3. LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE.

       Section 307 of the District of Columbia Court Reform and 
     Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (sec. 2-1607, D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) The Service shall, to the extent the Director 
     considers appropriate, provide representation for and hold 
     harmless, or provide liability insurance for, any person who 
     is an employee, member of the Board of Trustees, or officer 
     of the Service for money damages arising out of any claim, 
     proceeding, or case at law relating to the furnishing of 
     representational services or management services or related 
     services under this Act while acting within the scope of that 
     person's office or employment, including but not limited to 
     such claims, proceedings, or cases at law involving 
     employment actions, injury, loss of liberty, property damage, 
     loss of property, or personal injury, or death arising from 
     malpractice or negligence of any such officer or employee.''.

     SEC. 4. REDUCTION IN TERM OF SERVICE OF JUDGES ON FAMILY 
                   COURT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.

       (a) Reduction in Term of Service.--Section 11-908A(c)(1), 
     District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking 
     ``5 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any individual serving as a judge 
     on the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 1379 would grant the District of Columbia courts and 
Public Defender Service greater administrative flexibility in several 
areas.
  First, it authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and the Court of Appeals 
to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, eliminating 
the current mandate that they always hold such conferences each and 
every year.
  It requires magistrate judges to attend these judicial conferences.
  It authorizes the D.C. courts to delay judicial deadlines in certain 
emergency situations such as a natural disaster.
  It also allows the D.C. courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. 
government for certain office expenses, and it gives the D.C. Public 
Defender Service authority to purchase liability insurance for its 
attorneys, and changes the term for family court judges from 5 years to 
3 years.
  Nearly identical legislation was approved unanimously by the House in 
the 111th Congress. There is no expected cost associated with the 
legislation.
  I would like to thank Senator Akaka for sponsoring this bill and 
guiding its passage in the other body. I would also like to thank our 
colleague, Ms. Norton, for her work in getting this legislation to the 
floor today. She cares passionately about D.C. and has nothing but its 
best interests at heart. We listen to that, we hear that, and in part, 
because of that, we support this legislation and encourage our 
colleagues to do the same.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Utah for his kind remarks.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H6774]]

  Ms. NORTON. I rise today in strong support of the D.C. Courts and 
Public Defender Service Act of 2011. I would like to thank Senator Joe 
Lieberman, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which 
has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and particularly 
Senator Daniel Akaka, the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Government Management and the Senate sponsor of the bill, the 
Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia for ushering the bill 
through subcommittee and committee and getting it passed by voice vote.
  Both Senators Lieberman and Akaka are retiring this year. They each 
will leave rich legacies of accomplishment to the Nation, and both 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Akaka have always been good friends of 
the District of Columbia. They will be very much missed in both 
Chambers by all of us, I know, but particularly by the residents of the 
District of Columbia.
  S. 1379 is an important bill for the administration of justice in the 
District of Columbia. It will allow the chief judge of the superior 
court or the court of appeals to delay judicial proceedings in the 
event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other emergency. It 
is clear that the Nation's capital is at risk to such emergencies. Most 
recently, Hurricane Sandy, the unprecedented storm that devastated the 
east coast, and was expected to hit the District much harder than what 
actually occurred.
  S. 1379 also allows the chief judge of the court of appeals to hold 
judicial conferences biennially rather than annually as required by 
current law.

                              {time}  0930

  This option is common sense, considering the increase in the use of 
electronic communication today and the significant cost savings 
involved.
  The bill also allows the D.C. courts to enter into reimbursable 
agreements with the D.C. government for equipment, supplies, and other 
services, a measure to assure that reimbursement costs do not come from 
congressional appropriations.
  The bill reduces the term of service, from 5 to 3 years, required of 
judges of the family court division of the superior court, a policy 
aimed at easing recruitment of able judges to the family court 
division.
  In addition, the bill authorizes the Public Defender Service for the 
District of Columbia, a federally funded government agency, to purchase 
professional liability insurance for its attorneys, staff, and board 
members, which is, of course, indispensable to all who practice law 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for his work on this bill, 
and I particularly want to thank the chairman of the full committee, 
Mr. Issa, who went to great lengths to make sure that this bill, in 
fact, made the agenda of the Congress and who has been so important to 
understanding and making sure that particularly minor D.C. bills like 
this received quick treatment and, I must say, in addition to his work 
on very important bills for the District of Columbia that are still in 
progress like our budget autonomy bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, we urge passage, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
1379, the ``The D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011,'' 
the purpose of which is to grant the District of Columbia (D.C.) Courts 
and Public Defender Service (PDS) greater administrative flexibility in 
several areas.
  First, the bill authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and Court of 
Appeals to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, 
eliminating the current mandate that they always hold such conferences 
every year. Under S. 1379, magistrate judges are required to attend 
these judicial conferences.
  Moreover, this bill authorizes the D.C. Courts to toll or delay 
judicial deadlines in certain emergency situations such as natural 
disasters, and allows the D.C. Courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. 
Government for certain office expenses.
  Finally S. 1379 gives the D.C. Public Defender Service authority to 
purchase liability insurance for its attorneys and changes the term for 
Family Court judges from five years to three years.
  Current law requires the D.C. Courts to hold a judicial conference 
annually ``for the purpose of advising as to the means of improving the 
administration of justice within the District of Columbia.''
  Federal Courts, however, must hold a conference only every two years. 
The D.C. Courts have estimated that, in addition to the time spent by 
judicial personnel planning and attending the conference, they will 
spend approximately $50,000 on the 2012 judicial conference.
  We know that local governments, like D.C., are under tremendous 
budget constraints, and given Congress' Constitutionally-mandated duty 
to oversee the District, we should be solicitous to District concerns 
when it comes to what we require of its government, particularly where 
costs are concerned.
  The requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences was 
enacted before 1975, long before the internet was created in addition 
to numerous other advances in communication.
  D.C. Courts have determined that the funds, resources, and time 
required to prepare for and conduct such conferences would be more 
effectively used if the judicial conference were conducted biennially 
rather than annually.
  With the significant improvement in the dissemination and exchange of 
information the D.C. Courts' judicial conference is no longer the 
primary means of obtaining advice pertaining to the administration of 
justice within D.C.
  Specifically, the Courts have determined that electronic and other 
forms of communication, including the Courts' websites, enable them to 
regularly communicate with the various participants in the court 
system.
  We should remove the burdensome requirement that D.C. Courts hold 
annual judicial conferences and, instead, require biannual conferences. 
Furthermore, despite their important role in the judicial system of the 
District, magistrate judges currently are not required to attend the 
D.C. Courts' judicial conference.
  D.C. Court magistrate judges hear a variety of cases, including 
misdemeanor and traffic cases, criminal arraignments, small claims, 
child support orders, and protection orders.
  The D.C. Courts have requested that magistrate judges be required to 
attend judicial conferences. Because of their importance to the 
judicial system, I believe that this request should be granted.
  The D.C. Courts have also expressed concern with their inability to 
toll or delay judicial deadlines in the event of an emergency or 
terrorist attack.
  For example, in recent years, snowstorms as well as Tropical Storm 
Sandy have resulted in devastation of the D.C. Metropolitan area, 
resulting in federal government closings.
  To address this concern, S. 1379 authorizes the Chief Judges of the 
D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court to toll or delay 
judicial proceedings in the event of natural disasters or emergency 
situations.
  Emergency authority under this bill should be used sparingly, and 
only in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, S. 1379 requires that 
if the emergency authority is used for 14 days or more, the Joint 
Judicial Committee must approve each extension and the courts must give 
Congress a written justification no later than 180 days after the 
expiration of the last extension granted.
  Currently, there is no statutory authority to allow D.C. Courts, 
absent explicit authority from Congress, to enter into reimbursable 
agreements with anyone, including the D.C. government.
  This is because the D.C. Home Rule Act prevents the obligation of 
funds without approval by an Act of Congress. To address this concern, 
S. 1379 modifies the D.C. Code to allow the D.C. Courts to enter into 
reimbursable agreements for certain office expenses.
  Finally, unlike Federal public defender service organizations, D.C. 
Public Defender Service does not have explicit authority to purchase 
liability insurance for its attorneys; consequentially, its attorneys 
are unable to protect themselves from potential lawsuits arising during 
the course of their official duties.
  Individuals who provide professional advice and services, such as 
attorneys, typically carry liability insurance in order to offset the 
risks arising as a result of the advice or services they render.
  To address this, S. 1379 provides the D.C. Public Defender Service 
explicit statutory authority to purchase professional liability 
insurance, allowing its staff to be protected from the financial risk 
of potential lawsuits by clients and others.
  The accommodations sought by the D.C. Courts and Public Defender 
Service Act are reasonable and will ameliorate several deficiencies 
under current law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1379.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr.

[[Page H6775]]

Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 1379.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________