[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5664-H5666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4419) to update the financial disclosure
requirements for judges of the District of Columbia courts, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4419
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
Judicial Financial Transparency Act''.
SEC. 2. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDGES OF
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.
(a) Requirements Described.--Section 11-1530, D.C. Official
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 11-1530. Financial statements
``(a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall
promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts
shall, within one year following the date of enactment of the
District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at
least annually thereafter, file with the Commission a report
containing the following information:
``(1)(A) The source, type and amount of the judge's income
which exceeds $200 (other than income from the United States
government and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for
the period covered by the report.
``(B) The source and type of the judge's spouse's income
which exceeds $1,000 (other than income from the United
States government and income referred to in subparagraph (C))
for the period covered by the report.
``(C) The source and type of income which consists of
dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains received by the
judge and the judge's spouse during such period which exceeds
$200 in amount or value, and an indication of which of the
following categories the amount or value of such item of
income is within--
``(i) not more than $1,000,
``(ii) greater than 1,000 but not more than $2,500,
``(iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than $5,000,
``(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than $15,000,
``(v) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000,
``(vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000,
``(vii) greater than $100,000 but not more than $1,000,000,
``(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than
$5,000,000, or
``(ix) greater than $5,000,000.
``(2) The name and address of each private foundation or
eleemosynary institution, and of each business or
professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which the
judge was an officer, director, proprietor, or partner during
such period.
``(3) The identity and category of value (as set forth in
subsection (b)) of each liability of $10,000 or more owed by
the judge or by the judge and the judge's spouse jointly at
any time during such period.
``(4) The source and value of all gifts in the aggregate
amount or value of $250 or more from any single source
received by the judge during such period, except gifts from
the judge's spouse or any of the judge's children or parents.
``(5) The identity of each trust in which the judge held a
beneficial interest having a value of $10,000 or more at any
time during such period, and in the case of any trust in
which the judge held any beneficial interest during such
period, the identity, if known, of each interest in real or
personal property in which the trust held a beneficial
interest having a value of $10,000 or more at any time during
such period. If the judge cannot obtain the identity of the
trust interest, the judge shall request the trustee to report
that information to the Commission.
``(6) The identity and category of value (as set forth in
subsection (b)) of each interest in real or personal property
having a value of $10,000 or more which the judge owned at
any time during such period.
``(7) The amount or value and source of each honorarium of
$250 or more received by the judge and the judge's spouse
during such period.
``(8) The source and amount of all money, other than that
received from the United States government, received in the
form of an expense account or as reimbursement for
expenditures from any source aggregating more than $250
during such period.
``(9) The source and amount of all waivers or partial
waivers of fees or charges accepted by the judge on behalf of
the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, or guest
during such period.
``(b) For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (6) of subsection
(a), the categories of value set forth in this subsection
are--
``(1) not more than $15,000;
``(2) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000;
``(3) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000;
``(4) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000;
``(5) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000;
``(6) greater than $500,000 but not more than $1,000,000;
``(7) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
``(8) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than
$25,000,000;
``(9) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than
$50,000,000; and
``(10) greater than $50,000,000.
``(c)(1) Reports filed pursuant to this section shall, upon
written request, and notice to the reporting judge for
purposes of making an application to the Commission for a
redaction pursuant to paragraph (2), be made available for
public inspection and copying within a reasonable time after
filing and during the period they are kept by the Commission
(in accordance with rules promulgated by the Commission), and
shall be kept by the Commission for not less than three
years.
``(2) This section does not require the public availability
of reports filed by a judge if upon application by the
reporting judge, a finding is made by the Commission that
revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger
that judge or a family member of that judge, except that a
report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph only--
``(A) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who
filed the report or a family member of that individual; and
``(B) for as long as the danger to such individual exists.
``(d) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of
Columbia court to file a report required by this section, or
the filing of a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful
misconduct in office and shall be grounds for removal from
office under section 11-1526(a)(2).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to reports filed under section 11-
1530, D.C. Official Code, that cover periods beginning during
or after 2016.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PROBATE DIVISION TO USE MAGISTRATE
JUDGES.
(a) In General.--Section 11-1732(j)(5), District of
Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ``Family
Divisions'' and inserting ``Probate Divisions, and the Family
Court,''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 11-
1732(j)(4)(A), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended
by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family
Court''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS TO ACCEPT
CERTAIN TYPES OF PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11,
District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types
of payments
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `electronic
funds transfer'--
``(1) means a transfer of funds, other than a transaction
by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, that is
initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, or
computer or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering,
instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit
or credit an account; and
``(2) includes point of sale transfers, automated teller
machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal of funds,
transfers initiated by telephone, and transfers resulting
from debit card transactions.
``(b) Authority to Accept Credit Card Payments and
Electronic Funds Transfers.--
``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may
accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution,
bonds, and other payments to the courts by credit card or
electronic funds transfer.
``(2) Use of vendors and third party providers.--The
Executive officer--
``(A) may contract with a bank or credit card vendor, or
other third party provider, for purposes of accepting
payments by credit card or electronic funds transfer; and
``(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost
vendor for purposes of accepting such payments.
``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any contract
entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the
payment shall be responsible for covering any fee or charge
associated or imposed with respect to the method of payment.
``(4) Completion of payment.--If a person elects to make a
payment to the District of Columbia courts by a method
authorized under paragraph (1), the payment shall not be
deemed to be made until the courts receive the funds.
``(c) Authority to Accept Checks.--
``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may
accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution,
bonds, and other payments to the courts by check.
``(2) Use of check guarantee vendor.--The Executive
Officer--
[[Page H5665]]
``(A) may contract with a check guarantee vendor for
purposes of accepting payments by check; and
``(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost
vendor for purposes of accepting such payments.
``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any contract
entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the
payment by check shall be responsible for covering any fee or
charge associated or imposed with respect to the method of
payment.
``(d) Liability for Non-payment.--If a check or other
method of payment, including payment by credit card, debit
card, or charge card, so received is not duly paid, or is
paid and subsequently charged back to the District of
Columbia courts, the person by whom such check or other
method of payment has been tendered shall remain liable for
the payment, to the same extent as if such check or other
method of payment had not been tendered.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11,
District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments.''.
SEC. 5. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY PERMITTED
FOR CASES UNDER JURISDICTION OF SMALL CLAIMS
AND CONCILIATION BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.
(a) In General.--Section 11-1321, District of Columbia
Official Code, is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any case filed in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS IN
EXCESS OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--
(1) Criminal defense appointments.--Section 11-2604(c),
District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking
the last sentence and inserting the following: ``Each chief
judge may delegate such approval authority to an active or
senior judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.''.
(2) Child abuse and neglect appointments.--Section 16-
2326.01(f), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(f)(1)'' and inserting ``(f)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ``Each chief judge
may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior
judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to any case or proceeding initiated
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4419, the District of Columbia Judicial
Financial Transparency Act, which was introduced by my colleague from
the District of Columbia, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. H.R. 4419
would provide a more robust and open disclosure of judicial finances in
the District.
Currently, District judges are required to meet disclosure
requirements that are less rigorous than those mandated for Federal
judges. H.R. 4419 will help to close this disclosure gap. This bill
will require judges to disclose sources of income for themselves and
their spouses. This increased disclosure will help to strengthen an
important pillar of our judicial system: the public's trust in an
impartial judicial system.
In order to ensure that those before the District's judicial system
can be confident in its impartial nature, the bill also requires that
the disclosures be made publicly available.
The bill will require that disclosure reports be made available to
the public for 3 years after they have been filed. H.R. 4419 will
ensure compliance by making a failure to file or filing a fraudulent
report an offense that is punishable by removal from office. This
legislation will help to protect the public's faith in the integrity
and impartiality of the District's judicial branch.
H.R. 4419 is a good government bill, and I encourage my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill forward. I
thank, especially, Chairman Chaffetz for his support in moving this
bill through the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and now to
the floor for consideration. I am also grateful to Ranking Member
Elijah Cummings for his vital assistance as this bill moves forward. I
thank Senator James Lankford, who once served with us on this committee
and who introduced the companion bill in the Senate, which was already
reported favorably by the Senate's Homeland Security & Governmental
Affairs Committee in May of this year.
My bill, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency
Act, as amended, will provide much-needed transparency to the District
of Columbia's local courts by enhancing financial disclosure
requirements for D.C. court judges to make them more similar to the
disclosure requirements that are already in place for Article III
Federal judges. District of Columbia judges are Article I Federal
judges.
Although current law requires D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of
Appeals judges to file annual financial reports, there was no
requirement that all of this information be made public. For example,
while judges are required to submit information about their incomes,
investments, liabilities, and gifts--and we have no reason to believe
that they have failed to do so--current law only makes public judges'
connections to charities, private organizations, businesses, as well as
honorariums that are more than $300. My bill would make all of this
information, except for the judges' personally identifiable
information, available for public inspection.
This bill is particularly necessary because a 2014 survey by the
Center for Public Integrity, which took a comprehensive look at each
State's judicial financial disclosure rules, gave the District a
failing grade. D.C. court judges already submit enough financial
information to improve the District's standing. My bill would simply
make it public.
Like Senator Lankford's bill, my bill also includes provisions that
will give D.C. courts new authorities to improve their operations.
These provisions would authorize magistrate judges to serve in the
probate division, which would help address the increasing number of
adult guardianship cases; allow the courts to accept payments by credit
card and check--imagine how late we are in getting to that--which would
reduce administrative costs and increase efficiency; increase the
maximum amount in controversy for small claims from $5,000 to $10,000,
which would be the first increase in 20 years, would ensure access to
the courts for plaintiffs with limited means; and authorize the chief
judges to delegate their authority to approve reimbursements to court-
appointed attorneys.
{time} 1500
Currently the chief judges must personally approve these
reimbursements, which adds to their administrative workload and diverts
attention and resources away from more critical issues facing our
courts.
Congress has the jurisdiction over our court system because, as I
have indicated, it has jurisdiction over all Article I courts and,
therefore, the authority to make the necessary improvements.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4419, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. 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, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
[[Page H5666]]
____________________