[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.
____________________