[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27009-27016]
[From the U.S. 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 concur in 
the Senate amendment to 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:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     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 
     following:
       ``(1) The Civil Division.
       ``(2) The Criminal Division.
       ``(3) The Family Court.
       ``(4) The Probate Division.
       ``(5) 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 
     original jurisdiction over the actions, applications, 
     determinations, adjudications, and proceedings described in 
     section 11-1101. Actions, applications, determinations, 
     adjudications, and proceedings being assigned to cross-
     jurisdictional units established by the Superior Court, 
     including the Domestic Violence Unit, on the date of 
     enactment of this section may continue to be so assigned 
     after the date of enactment of this section.''.
       (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) 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

       ``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.--
       ``(1) In general.--The number of judges serving on the 
     Family Court of the Superior Court shall be not more than 15.
       ``(2) Emergency reassignment.--If the chief judge 
     determines that, in order to carry out the intent and 
     purposes of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 
     2001, an emergency exists such that the number of judges 
     needed on the Family Court of the Superior Court at any time 
     is more than 15--
       ``(A) the chief judge may temporarily reassign judges from 
     other divisions of the Superior Court to serve on the Family 
     Court who meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
     subsection (b) or senior judges who meet the requirements of 
     those paragraphs, except such reassigned judges shall not be 
     subject to the term of service requirements set forth in 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(B) the chief judge shall, within 30 days of emergency 
     temporary reassignment pursuant to subparagraph (A), submit a 
     report to the President and Congress describing--
       ``(i) the nature of the emergency;
       ``(ii) how the emergency was addressed, including which 
     judges were reassigned; and
       ``(iii) whether and why an increase in the number of Family 
     Court judges authorized in subsection (a)(1) may be necessary 
     to serve the needs of families and children in the District 
     of Columbia.
       ``(3) Composition.--The total number of judges on the 
     Superior Court may exceed the limit on such judges specified 
     in section 11-903 to the extent necessary to maintain the 
     requirements of this subsection if--
       ``(A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court is 
     less than 15; and
       ``(B) the Chief Judge of the Superior Court--
       ``(i) is unable to secure a volunteer judge who is sitting 
     on the Superior Court outside of the Family Court for 
     reassignment to the Family Court;
       ``(ii) obtains approval of the Joint Committee on Judicial 
     Administration; and
       ``(iii) reports to Congress regarding the circumstances 
     that gave rise to the necessity to exceed the cap.
       ``(b) Qualifications.--The chief judge may not assign an 
     individual to serve on the Family Court of the Superior Court 
     or handle a Family Court case 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, 
     individuals serving as temporary judges under section 11-908, 
     and any other judge serving in another division of the 
     Superior Court who is reassigned on an emergency temporary 
     basis pursuant to subsection (a)(2);
       ``(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); and
       ``(4) the individual meets the requirements of section 11-
     1501(b).
       ``(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 of 2001.--
       ``(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

[[Page 27010]]

     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 immediately preceding 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)) expires, at the judge's request and with the 
     approval of the chief judge, 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 and with the approval of the 
     chief 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 in the 
     interest of justice the judge is unable to continue serving 
     in the Family Court.''.
       (b) Plan for Family Court Transition.--
       (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 role and 
     function of the presiding judge of the Family Court.
       (B) The chief judge's determination of the number of judges 
     needed to serve on 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, including a description of 
     how the Superior Court will handle the one family, one judge 
     requirement pursuant to section 11-1104(a) for all cases and 
     proceedings assigned to the Family Court.
       (F) A plan for space, equipment, and other physical plant 
     needs and requirements during the transition, as determined 
     in consultation with the Administrator of General Services.
       (G) An analysis of the number of magistrate judges needed 
     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)).
       (H) Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (2), a 
     proposal for the disposition or transfer to the Family Court 
     of child abuse and neglect actions pending as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act (which were initiated in the Family 
     Division but remain pending before judges serving 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 best practices developed by 
     the American Bar Association and the National Council of 
     Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
       (I) An estimate of the number of cases for which the 
     deadline for disposition or transfer to the Family Court, 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B), cannot be met and the reasons 
     why such deadline cannot be met.
       (2) Implementation of the plan for transfer or disposition 
     of actions and proceedings to family court.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the chief judge of the Superior Court and the presiding judge 
     of the Family Court shall take such steps as may be required 
     as provided in the proposal for disposition of actions and 
     proceedings under paragraph (1)(H) to ensure that each child 
     abuse and neglect action of the Superior Court (as described 
     in section 11-902(d), District of Columbia Code, as amended 
     by subsection (a)) is transferred to the Family Court or 
     otherwise disposed of as provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Deadline.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act or any amendment made by this Act and except as 
     provided in subparagraph (C), no child abuse or neglect 
     action shall remain pending with a judge not serving on the 
     Family Court upon the expiration of 18 months after the 
     filing of the transition plan required under paragraph (1).
       (ii) Rule of construction.--The chief judge of the Superior 
     Court should make every effort to provide for the earliest 
     practicable disposition of actions. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall preclude the immediate transfer of cases 
     to the Family Court, particularly cases which have been filed 
     with the court for less than 6 months prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (C) Retained cases.--Child abuse and neglect cases that 
     were initiated in the Family Division but remain pending 
     before judges, including senior judges as defined in section 
     11-1504, District of Columbia Code, in other Divisions of the 
     Superior Court as of the date of enactment of this Act may 
     remain before judges, including senior judges, in such other 
     Divisions when--
       (i) the case remains at all times in full compliance with 
     Public Law 105-89, if applicable;
       (ii) the chief judge determines, in consultation with the 
     presiding judge of the Family Court, based on the record in 
     the case and any unique expertise, training, or knowledge of 
     the case that the judge might have, that permitting the judge 
     to retain the case would lead to permanent placement of the 
     child more quickly than reassignment to a judge in the Family 
     Court.
       (D) Priority for certain actions and proceedings.--The 
     chief judge of the Superior Court, in consultation with the 
     presiding judge of the Family Court, shall give priority 
     consideration to the disposition or transfer of the following 
     actions and proceedings:
       (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 
     enactment of this Act.
       (iii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is 
     assigned as of the date of enactment of this Act is not 
     assigned to the Family Division.
       (E) Progress reports.--The chief judge of the Superior 
     Court shall submit reports to the President, to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of each House, the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives at 6-month 
     intervals for a period of 2 years after the date of 
     submission of the transition plan required under paragraph 
     (1) on the progress made towards disposing of actions or 
     proceedings described in subparagraph (B).
       (F) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     preclude the chief judge, in consultation with the presiding 
     judge of the Family Court, from transferring actions or 
     proceedings pending before judges outside the Family Court at 
     the enactment of this Act which do not involve allegations of 
     abuse and neglect but which would otherwise fall under the 
     jurisdiction of the Family Court to judges in the Family 
     Court prior to the deadline as defined in subparagraph 2(B), 
     particularly if such transfer would result in more efficient 
     resolution of such actions or proceedings.
       (3) 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 Required 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--
       (i) 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
       (ii) are willing and able to serve on the Family Court; and
       (B) if the chief judge determines that the number of 
     individuals described in subparagraph (A) is less than 15, a 
     request that the Judicial Nomination Commission recruit and 
     the President nominate (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 section 
     11-908A, District of Columbia Code, as may be required to 
     enable the chief judge to make the required number of 
     assignments.
       (2) 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, except that the 
     deadline for the submission by the District of Columbia 
     Judicial Nomination Commission of nominees to fill such 
     vacancies shall be 90 days after the creation of such 
     vacancies. 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.
       (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 implementation of 
     the transition plan under subsection (b)), 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

[[Page 27011]]

     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 paragraphs (1)(I) and 
     (2) of subsection (b)), 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) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     11-908(a), District of Columbia Code, is amended by striking 
     ``The chief judge'' and inserting ``Subject to section 11-
     908A, the chief judge''.
       (f) 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 striking section 1101 and inserting 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 11-1101. Jurisdiction of the Family Court

       ``(a) In General.--The Family Court of the District of 
     Columbia shall be assigned and have original jurisdiction 
     over--
       ``(1) actions for divorce from the bond of marriage and 
     legal separation from bed and board, including proceedings 
     incidental thereto for alimony, pendente lite and permanent, 
     and for support and custody of minor children;
       ``(2) applications for revocation of divorce from bed and 
     board;
       ``(3) actions to enforce support of any person as required 
     by law;
       ``(4) actions seeking custody of minor children, including 
     petitions for writs of habeas corpus;
       ``(5) actions to declare marriages void;
       ``(6) actions to declare marriages valid;
       ``(7) actions for annulments of marriage;
       ``(8) determinations and adjudications of property rights, 
     both real and personal, in any action referred to in this 
     section, irrespective of any jurisdictional limitation 
     imposed on the Superior Court;
       ``(9) proceedings in adoption;
       ``(10) proceedings under the Act of July 10, 1957 (D.C. 
     Code, secs. 30-301 to 30-324);
       ``(11) proceedings to determine paternity of any child born 
     out of wedlock;
       ``(12) civil proceedings for protection involving 
     intrafamily offenses, instituted pursuant to chapter 10 of 
     title 16;
       ``(13) proceedings in which a child, as defined in section 
     16-2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need 
     of supervision;
       ``(14) proceedings under chapter 5 of title 21 relating to 
     the commitment of the mentally ill;
       ``(15) proceedings under chapter 13 of title 7 relating to 
     the commitment of the at least moderately mentally retarded; 
     and
       ``(16) proceedings under Interstate Compact on Juveniles 
     (described in title IV of the District of Columbia Court 
     Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970).
       ``(b) Definition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this chapter, the term `action or 
     proceeding' with respect to the Family Court refers to cause 
     of action described in paragraphs (1) through (16) of 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Exception.--An action or proceeding may be assigned 
     to or retained by cross-jurisdictional units established by 
     the Superior Court, including the Domestic Violence Unit.

     ``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.--To the greatest extent practicable, feasible, 
     and lawful, 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.
       ``(b) Retention of Jurisdiction Over Cases.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the requirement of 
     subsection (a), 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, except as provided in 
     paragraph (2)(D).
       ``(2) One family, one judge.--
       ``(A) For the duration.--An action or proceeding assigned 
     pursuant to this subsection shall remain with the judge or 
     magistrate judge in the Family Court to whom the action or 
     proceeding is assigned for the duration of the action or 
     proceeding to the greatest extent practicable, feasible, and 
     lawful, subject to subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) All cases involving an individual.--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 to the greatest extent practicable and 
     feasible.
       ``(C) Family court case retention.--If the full term of a 
     Family Court judge to whom the action or proceeding is 
     assigned is completed 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.
       ``(D) Exception.--A judge whose full term on the Family 
     Court is completed but who remains in Superior Court may 
     retain the case or proceeding for not more than 6 months or, 
     in extraordinary circumstances, for not more than 12 months 
     after ceasing to serve if--
       ``(i) the case remains at all times in full compliance with 
     Public Law 105-89, if applicable; and
       ``(ii) if Public Law 105-89 is applicable, the chief judge 
     determines, in consultation with the presiding judge of the 
     Family Court, based on the record in the case and any unique 
     expertise, training or knowledge of the case that the judge 
     might have, that permitting the judge to retain the case 
     would lead to permanent placement of the child more quickly 
     than reassignment to a judge in the Family Court.
       ``(3) Standards of judicial ethics.--The actions of a judge 
     or magistrate judge in retaining an action or proceeding 
     under this paragraph shall be subject to applicable standards 
     of judicial ethics.
       ``(c) Training Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The chief judge, in consultation with 
     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 and other judges of 
     the Superior Court who are assigned Family Court cases, 
     including magistrate judges, attorneys who practice in the 
     Family Court, and appropriate nonjudicial personnel, and 
     shall include in the program information and instruction 
     regarding the following:
       ``(A) Child development.
       ``(B) Family dynamics, including domestic violence.
       ``(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 and the presiding judge of the Family 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 Family Court, and that the Family 
     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 chief judge 
     of the Superior Court--
       ``(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(b) 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) Onsite Coordination of Services and Information.--

[[Page 27012]]

       ``(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 Family Court 
     regarding the services available from the District government 
     to the individuals and families served by the Family 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.

     ``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 as required by the Adoption and 
     Safe Families Act of 1997 to improve the Family Court's 
     performance in the following year.
       ``(3) Information on the extent to which the Family Court 
     met deadlines and standards applicable under Federal and 
     District of Columbia law to the review and disposition of 
     actions and proceedings under the Family Court's jurisdiction 
     during the year.
       ``(4) Information on the progress made in establishing 
     locations and appropriate space for the Family Court that are 
     consistent with the mission of the Family Court until such 
     time as the locations and space are established.
       ``(5) Information on any factors which are not under the 
     control of the Family Court which interfere with or prevent 
     the Family Court from carrying out its responsibilities in 
     the most effective manner possible.
       ``(6) Information on--
       ``(A) the number of judges serving on the Family Court as 
     of the end of the year;
       ``(B) how long each such judge has served on the Family 
     Court;
       ``(C) the number of cases retained outside the Family 
     Court;
       ``(D) the number of reassignments to and from the Family 
     Court; and
       ``(E) the ability to recruit qualified sitting judges to 
     serve on the Family Court.
       ``(7) Based on outcome measures derived through the use of 
     the information stored in electronic format under section 11-
     1104(d), an analysis of the Family 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 
     Family 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.
       ``(8) If the Family 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:
       ``(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.''.
       (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.--Section 16-924, District of 
     Columbia Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``hearing commissioner'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``magistrate judge''; and
       (B) 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 the 
       Family Court of the Superior Court and the Domestic 
       Violence Unit

       ``(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 or assigned as a 
     magistrate judge for the Family Court of the Superior Court 
     or as a magistrate judge for the Domestic Violence Unit 
     handling actions or proceedings which would otherwise be 
     under the jurisdiction of the Family 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 as a lawyer or judicial 
     officer; and
       ``(5)(A) 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, and retains such residency during service as a 
     magistrate judge; or
       ``(B) is a bona fide resident of the areas consisting of 
     Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland, 
     Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and the City of Alexandria in 
     Virginia, has maintained an actual place of abode

[[Page 27013]]

     in such area, areas, or the District of Columbia for at least 
     5 years prior to appointment, and certifies that the 
     individual will become a bona fide resident of the District 
     of Columbia not later than 90 days after appointment.
       ``(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 of Family Court and Domestic Violence Unit 
     Magistrates.--A magistrate judge, when specifically 
     designated by the chief judge in consultation with the 
     appropriate presiding judge to serve in the Family Court or 
     in the Domestic Violence Unit 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 and the Domestic Violence 
     Unit of the Superior Court (as described in section 11-1101), 
     excluding jury trials and trials of felony cases, as assigned 
     by the appropriate presiding judge.
       ``(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 chief judge, in consultation with the 
     presiding judge of 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 or the Domestic Violence Unit 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 or the Domestic Violence Unit 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 or the Domestic Violence 
     Unit of the Superior Court, by a judge of the Family Court or 
     the Domestic Violence Unit)''.
       (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 or the Domestic Violence Unit)''.
       (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 the Family Court of 
              the Superior Court and the Domestic Violence Unit.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Expedited initial appointments.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court 
     of the District of Columbia shall appoint 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)), for the purpose of assisting with 
     the implementation of the transition plan under section 3(b) 
     of this Act, and in particular with the transition or 
     disposal of actions or proceedings pursuant to section 
     3(b)(2) of this Act.
       (B) Transition responsibilities of initially appointed 
     family court magistrates.--The chief judge of the Superior 
     Court and the presiding judge of the Family Division of the 
     Superior Court (acting jointly) shall first assign the 
     magistrate judges of Family Court appointed under this 
     paragraph to work with judges to whom the cases are currently 
     assigned in making case disposition or transfer decisions as 
     follows:
       (i) The action or proceeding involves an allegation of 
     abuse or neglect.
       (ii) The judge to whom the action or proceeding is assigned 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act is not assigned to 
     the Family Division.
       (iii) The action or proceeding was initiated in the Family 
     Division prior to the 2-year period which ends on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to preclude magistrate judges appointed pursuant 
     to this subsection from performing upon appointment any or 
     all of the functions of magistrate judges of the Family Court 
     or Domestic Violence Unit as set forth in subsection 11-
     1732A(d).

     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. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE USE OF COURT 
                   APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the chief judge of the 
     Superior Court and the presiding judge of the Family Division 
     should take all steps necessary to encourage, support, and 
     improve the use of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) 
     in family court actions or proceedings.

     SEC. 9. INTERIM REPORTS.

       Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the chief judge of the Superior Court and the 
     presiding judge of the Family Court--
       (1) in consultation with the General Services 
     Administration, shall submit to Congress a feasibility study 
     for the construction, lease, or acquisition of appropriate 
     permanent courts and facilities for the Family Court; and
       (2) shall submit to Congress 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).

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Courts of 
     the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the amendments made by 
     this Act.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). 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 the measure under consideration.
  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, I urge all Members to concur in the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001. These 
Senate amendments have been approved by the sponsor of the legislation, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the original cosponsors of 
the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the 
gentlewoman from District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and myself, 
following diligent work between staff of both houses.
  The Senate amendments before us raise the ceiling of the number of 
judges for the Family Court to 15 judges. This provision would enable 
the chief judge to address unforeseeable needs if judges and 
magistrates are not able to keep up with the caseload.
  The amended bill further allows for emergency temporary reassignment 
of certain judges who are qualified to serve on the Family Court and 
who would not be subject to the length of term, should the 15 Family 
Court judges not be able to keep up with the docket. These temporary 
emergency judges are encouraged to volunteer to serve in this capacity 
to the greatest extent possible.
  These provisions modify the restriction in the District of Columbia 
Code to allow the chief judge of the Superior Court to exceed the 
overall cap of 59 judges if necessary to maintain a full complement of 
15 judges in Family Court. The amendments further provide that cases 
outside of the Family Court be allowed an 18-month transition period to 
return to the Family Court, and provide limited exception based on the 
records of the case.

[[Page 27014]]

  Additionally, the amended bill establishes a priority for returning 
the backlog of cases to the Family Court within the transition period, 
and requires that when a Family Court judge leaves the bench, all the 
cases must remain in the Family Court, except under extraordinary 
circumstances. The judge may have 6 months or 12 months, if it can be 
demonstrated to the chief judge that taking the case out of the Family 
Court will lead to permanent accomplishment of the child more quickly 
than if the case remained in the court.
  These cases must be in compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families 
Act. It is hoped that only a small number of cases will be retained 
under this provision.
  The Superior Court is required to report to Congress at 6-month 
intervals for 2 years. This provision will enable Congress to monitor 
the implementation of the reforms intended in the bill, including the 
transfer of cases back to the Family Court. Other reports are required 
by the Comptroller General, the chief judge, and the presiding judge of 
the Family Court at varying intervals.
  The Senate amendments to the House measure, H.R. 2657, maintain the 
requirement of one family-one judge in cases decided by the Family 
Court, which include divorces, alimony, child support, adoptions, 
custody, writs of habeas corpus, and other proceedings. The core of 
this legislation is to serve the children and the families of our 
Nation's capital.
  This legislation has been the culmination of many individual efforts, 
but I must especially thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for 
his leadership in making this legislation a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to concur in the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 2657, and 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, and to ask the 
support of this House for the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 
2001, a bill written as a bipartisan effort by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) and me.
  The bill contains the few amendments I informed the House on 
September 20 I could not add at that time because of the rush to get 
this bill to the floor in time to secure the necessary appropriation. I 
want to thank the Senate for assuring that these changes were included 
as Senate amendments to the bill.
  I especially want to thank the current chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella), and the former chair, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
for their leadership on this bill, but particular thanks are due to my 
friend and partner on this bill, the majority whip, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  The gentleman from Texas worked long and hard with me on this bill, 
and kept at it through tough negotiations when we had differences for 
more than a year until we both could agree on a final version. I 
appreciate the collegial way in which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) worked with me throughout. He has my special gratitude for the 
extra $24 million that has been appropriated to fund the reforms that 
this bill mandates.
  The Mayor and the City Council appreciate and support the work of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on the bill, as well, and the respect 
he has shown for home rule throughout his negotiations with me on this 
bill.
  The need to update the family division became a priority after the 
tragic death of Brianna Blackmond, an infant who was returned 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, had certified that the child should be returned.
  I must continue to emphasize that the D.C. City Council is far more 
familiar with the children and families of the city than we in 
Congress, and of course was best qualified to write this bill. However, 
when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, Congress withheld 
jurisdiction over D.C. courts. Therefore, I asked the Council to pass a 
resolution in support of the reforms in this bill, after scrutinizing 
it and offering 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 the 
bill. We respected the concerns of the District in negotiating 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. No court or other institutions 
should go a full 30 years without a close examination of its strengths 
and weaknesses. I know that the subcommittee will assure that there is 
appropriate oversight to the implementation of the bill by our 
subcommittee.
  The Family Division has not been able to meet adequately intractable 
societal problems and additionally has had to depend on an outside 
agency, the Child Family Services Agency, which until recently had been 
in a Federal court receivership.
  Our bill incorporates what we found in our investigation to be the 
best practices from successful independent family courts and family 
courts that are integrated into general jurisdiction courts all across 
the country.
  These courts have in common these basic reforms: An independent 
family court or division; ample family court judges to handle family 
matters; terms for judges in the family court; family court judges, 
magistrate judges, and other court personnel trained or expert in 
family law; ongoing training of family court judges; alternative 
dispute resolution or mediation in family cases; only one judge for 
each family; family cases only in the Family Court; magistrate judges 
to assist family court judges with their caseloads; and special 
magistrate judges to assist judges with current pending cases.
  The D.C. Family Court Act incorporates all these best practices.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am particularly pleased 
that in the amendments to the bill we were able to address several 
problems with the House bill that I first raised on this floor.
  These Senate amendments are important to ensure that, for example, 
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 new court, while it meets timetables mandated in the 
bill.
  In addition, the Senate amendments will ensure that the jurisdiction 
of the court's successful domestic violence unit is not undermined.
  We have all agreed that the successful disposition of these and other 
matters resolved with our Senate partners have produced a strong 
bipartisan consensus bill. I want to, once again, thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his tireless efforts and partnership with me 
on this bill, and for his great concern for the children and families 
of the District of Columbia; a concern that was always there, always 
evident, and that energized his hard work with me throughout; and, of 
course, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis), for their special efforts on this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this bill, and 
thank all who assisted us on it.
  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 ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton), for her wonderful comments and for all the work that she 
put into this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who is not the sponsor but the 
genesis of this bill in terms of responding to the great needs in the 
District of Columbia, and he has been tenacious.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me,

[[Page 27015]]

and congratulate her on a whole year of very hard work, the work she 
put in to bring this bill to the floor today.
  I also want to add my thanks to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was tireless in standing up for the abused 
and neglected children of the District of Columbia, understanding that 
the District desperately needs to focus on the welfare of these 
children and the best interests of these children.
  She understands that, and in the name of Brianna Blackmond, and maybe 
we should have named this bill for Brianna Blackmond, because this is 
the beginning of what I hope is a total reform effort to bring the kind 
of services and safe and permanent homes for children that are 
seriously abused.
  I also thank the staff that worked on it, particularly on my staff, 
Dr. Cassie Bevan, who is tenacious in her efforts to see that these 
children receive the kind of services that they deserve.
  These are children, Mr. Speaker, that are the most oppressed, the 
most abused, not just in the District of Columbia, but all over the 
United States. The effort all over the United States is sort of focused 
here in our Nation's capital in trying to do the best we can.
  There are 4,500 cases that are currently supervised outside the 
Family Division that can now be brought into the Family Division of the 
Superior Court upon the signature of the President of this bill, so 
maybe we can start working on this backlog and develop a system, a 
model system for the Nation's capital to take care of these children.
  These are children that are dying, these are children that have been 
forgotten, in many cases. I remind my colleagues that this came to our 
attention not just through the death of Brianna Blackmond, but the 
child welfare system of the District was in receivership. It was in a 
mess.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) understood 
this and worked with us closely, and was the driving force in making 
this happen.
  But I have to tell my colleagues, this is only the first step in a 
reform effort in the District of Columbia that is desperately needed. 
Just this last summer, over 100 files were lost, 100 files. Let me 
explain what that means.
  A child makes an outcry, he or she is being abused and neglected in 
one way or another; and the stories that we hear of what is happening 
to children, not just in the District of Columbia, but all across the 
Nation are just horrendous.
  But this child makes an outcry for help, and looking for someone to 
help them, and a file is created on this child and then lost. We do not 
even know what has happened to these children. The perpetrator of the 
abuse and neglect on this child knows now that the child made an 
outcry, and who knows what has been done to that child that made the 
outcry.

                              {time}  1115

  This is abhorrent and we can not stand for it any longer and we are 
not. And by passing this bill, this is the beginning of what I hope is 
once and for all a process that we will go through in the District of 
Columbia to bring these children out of an abusive situation, give them 
the services that they need and, most importantly, find them a safe and 
permanent home where they can look forward and have hope for a future 
that other children enjoy today. I think that is vitally important.
  This is going to be a showcase hopefully for the Nation. And, 
colleagues, children and families need a court that focuses exclusively 
on their welfare and their best interest. To realize this objective, 
the family court absolutely has to keep cases within its boundaries in 
order to be effective. This bill before us requires that the backlog of 
4,500 cases have to be returned; and, second, that these cases which 
are currently under supervision of judges in the family division, 
remain there even after the individual judges leave the family bench. 
But most importantly, it gives us the opportunity to recruit judges 
that want to deal in this area of the law, that want to work with these 
children and these families to give these children the kind of future 
they deserve.
  This bill also requires that each year a report is prepared to 
Congress that includes the number of cases retained outside the family 
court. It is our intention that this number be very low, because one of 
the major purposes of this Act is to keep all the cases in the 
specialized family court. So under the D.C. appropriations bill, as the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has said, there 
is $24 million that has been appropriated to implement this 
legislation, to upgrade our computer systems, to expand its courtroom 
facilities and increase the number of judicial personnel to handle this 
huge backlog of cases.
  The reforms required in this legislation combined with the money 
appropriated to support these reforms was designed with a single vital 
purpose, and that is to save the lives of abused and neglected children 
in the District of Columbia who are endangered by the status quo.
  I am very proud to be associated with the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the 
delegation that serves the D.C. metroplex and, particularly, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who has done an 
outstanding job in working all this out and bringing this bill to the 
floor. The children will appreciate it in the future. We have dedicated 
it to Brianna Blackmond.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would like 
to thank two staff members by name, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), staff member Cassie Bevan, and my own staff member, John 
Bouker, because in a very real sense, when Members are as deeply 
involved as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I have been in 
this bill, the services of very high qualified, very smart staff people 
need to be involved, particularly given the many technical areas that 
were involved in this bill and the points of disagreement we had.
  I want to, once again, say that I do not need to tell this House that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is a tough negotiator. And yet, 
throughout these negotiations, they were over a year, we never came to 
a point where we did not think there would be a bill. And this was 
largely because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), although the 
District is not his district, felt so deeply about the children that he 
was willing to put personal time into this bill. That is difficult to 
do if you are a leader of the House. And I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman again for his personal involvement in 
this bill, and for never letting go of this bill. Although, I will say 
on this floor that there were times I wish he would have let go of this 
bill. But that is what a bipartisan bill is about. It is about working 
together, instead of turning over the tables, until we can get a bill 
we can agree upon.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I probably have parts of 
this bill that we would like to have seen done just a little 
differently. But in the name of the children who will profit, who will 
benefit from what this bill provides, in the name of the many families 
in the District of Columbia for whom this bill will mean something very 
real in their lives, he and I reached a resolution of any differences 
we had.
  We are both very proud of this bill.
  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, you can see this has been a collaborative effort that is 
going to help the children in the District of Columbia and be a model, 
I think, for the rest of the Nation. Anything good does not happen that 
easily. And so this is an example of something that has come from a lot 
of hard work.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) for his 
leadership in making sure that this bill was negotiated throughout to 
come to this point, and also to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) for the work, her tenaciousness in having this 
bill again crafted and reach this point. The gentleman

[[Page 27016]]

from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has always been involved with it, and I am 
certainly pleased that we have reached this point.
  I want to thank the staff also, John Bouker. Certainly Cassie Statuto 
Bevan has been there every inch of the way. My staff, Russell Smith and 
Heea Vazirani-Fales and the others who worked on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I identify myself with the idea that when you touch a 
rock, you touch the past; and when you touch a flower, you touch the 
present; but when you touch a child, you touch the future. And that is 
just what this bill does. So I urge all our colleagues to 
wholeheartedly endorse the bill.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2657, the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, as 
amended. This is an important bill that will provide the Family Court 
with the structural and management reforms it needs to efficiently and 
effectively serve the children in the District's child welfare system.
  After the tragic death of 23-month-old Brianna Blackmond, the D.C. 
Subcommittee held two hearing last year, which revealed the dire need 
for reforms to the various components of the District's child welfare 
system, including the Family Court. The recent series of articles in 
the Washington Post highlight long-term systemic problems in the child 
welfare system, and reemphasize the need for Court reform.
  The Family Court must be equipped with the strategic tools and 
resource to assure the safety and well-being of the city's most 
vulnerable children. H.R. 2657 accomplishes this objective. It mandates 
longer judicial terms of service to ensure greater continuity in the 
handling of cases. New appointees to the Superior Court who are 
assigned to the Family Court will serve for 5 years. The bill also 
requires that judges appointed to serve on the Family Court have 
committed themselves to the practice of family law. Furthermore, it 
creates magistrate judges, who will be responsible for handling the 
backlog of 4,500 cases.
  The bill imposes the critically important ``one family, one judge'' 
requirement on the Family Court to ensure that a judge is familiar with 
a family's history in order to make appropriate decisions regarding the 
safety and placement of the child.
  The Court will create its own integrated computer system for use by 
judges, magistrate judges, and nonjudicial personnel, allowing them 
access to all pending cases related to children and their families. The 
bill also provides the judges and magistrate judges with access to 
information regarding the myriad social services available in D.C.
  In addition to these key provisions, I support the Senate amendments. 
These include a provision requiring that when judges leave the Family 
Court, all of their cases remain in the Family Court. However, the bill 
does allow the judges an additional 6 months, and under extraordinary 
circumstances and additional 12 months, to retain a case if they can 
demonstrate to the Chief Judge that removing the child's case from the 
Family Court will result in more expeditious permanent placement. Let 
me emphasize that the application of this provision is only intended in 
rare situations.
  The critical reforms in this legislation will help ensure that the 
Family Court can meet the needs of the city's children. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support H.R. 2657, as amended.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House 
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to 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.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________