[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19659-19662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        FEDERAL JUDICIARY EMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSIONS ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3650) to allow United States courts to conduct business 
during emergency conditions, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3650

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT COURT PROCEEDINGS 
                   OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE 
                   COURT.

       (a) Circuit Courts.--Section 48 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Each court of appeals may hold special sessions at 
     any place within the United States outside the circuit as the 
     nature of the business may require and upon such notice as 
     the court orders, upon a finding by either the chief judge of 
     the court of appeals (or, if the chief judge is unavailable, 
     the most senior available active judge of the court of 
     appeals) or the judicial council of the circuit that, because 
     of emergency conditions, no location within the circuit is 
     reasonably available where such special sessions could be 
     held. The court may transact any business at a special 
     session outside the circuit which it might transact at a 
     regular session.
       ``(f) If a court of appeals issues an order exercising its 
     authority under subsection (e), the court--
       ``(1) through the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, shall--
       ``(A) send notice of such order, including the reasons for 
     the issuance of such order, to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       ``(B) not later than 180 days after the expiration of such 
     court order submit a brief report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives describing the impact of such 
     order, including--
       ``(i) the reasons for the issuance of such order;
       ``(ii) the duration of such order;
       ``(iii) the impact of such order on litigants; and
       ``(iv) the costs to the judiciary resulting from such 
     order; and
       ``(2) shall provide reasonable notice to the United States 
     Marshals Service before the commencement of any special 
     session held pursuant to such order.''.
       (b) District Courts.--Section 141 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)(1)'' before ``Special'';
       (2) by inserting ``(2)'' before ``Any''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Special sessions of the district court may be held 
     at such places within the United States outside the district 
     as the nature of the business may require and upon such 
     notice as the court orders, upon a finding by either the 
     chief judge of the district court (or, if the chief judge is 
     unavailable, the most senior available active judge of the 
     district court) or the judicial council of the circuit that, 
     because of emergency conditions, no location within the 
     district is reasonably available where such special sessions 
     could be held.
       ``(2) Pursuant to this subsection, any business which may 
     be transacted at a regular session of a district court may be 
     transacted at a special session conducted outside the 
     district, except that a criminal trial may not be conducted 
     at a special session outside the State in which the crime has 
     been committed unless the defendant consents to such a 
     criminal trial.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any 
     case in which special sessions are conducted pursuant to this 
     section, the district court may summon jurors--
       ``(A) in civil proceedings, from any part of the district 
     in which the court ordinarily conducts business or the 
     district in which it is holding a special session; and
       ``(B) in criminal trials, from any part of the district in 
     which the crime has been committed and, if the defendant so 
     consents, from any district in which the court is conducting 
     business pursuant to this section.
       ``(4) If a district court issues an order exercising its 
     authority under paragraph (1), the court--
       ``(A) through the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, shall--
       ``(i) send notice of such order, including the reasons for 
     the issuance of such order, to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       ``(ii) not later than 180 days after the expiration of such 
     court order submit a brief report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives describing the impact of such 
     order, including--
       ``(I) the reasons for the issuance of such order;
       ``(II) the duration of such order;
       ``(III) the impact of such order on litigants; and
       ``(IV) the costs to the judiciary resulting from such 
     order; and

[[Page 19660]]

       ``(B) shall provide reasonable notice to the United States 
     Marshals Service before the commencement of any special 
     session held pursuant to such order.''.
       (c) Bankruptcy Courts.--Section 152(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Bankruptcy judges may hold court at such places 
     within the United States outside the judicial district as the 
     nature of the business of the court may require, and upon 
     such notice as the court orders, upon a finding by either the 
     chief judge of the bankruptcy court (or, if the chief judge 
     is unavailable, the most senior available bankruptcy judge) 
     or by the judicial council of the circuit that, because of 
     emergency conditions, no location within the district is 
     reasonably available where the bankruptcy judges could hold 
     court.
       ``(B) Bankruptcy judges may transact any business at 
     special sessions of court held outside the district pursuant 
     to this paragraph that might be transacted at a regular 
     session.
       ``(C) If a bankruptcy court issues an order exercising its 
     authority under subparagraph (A), the court--
       ``(i) through the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, shall--
       ``(I) send notice of such order, including the reasons for 
     the issuance of such order, to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       ``(II) not later than 180 days after the expiration of such 
     court order submit a brief report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives describing the impact of such 
     order, including--
       ``(aa) the reasons for the issuance of such order;
       ``(bb) the duration of such order;
       ``(cc) the impact of such order on litigants; and
       ``(dd) the costs to the judiciary resulting from such 
     order; and
       ``(ii) shall provide reasonable notice to the United States 
     Marshals Service before the commencement of any special 
     session held pursuant to such order.''.
       (d) United States Magistrate Judges.--Section 636 of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended in subsection (a) by 
     striking ``territorial jurisdiction prescribed by his 
     appointment--'' and inserting ``district in which sessions 
     are held by the court that appointed the magistrate judge, at 
     other places where that court may function, and elsewhere as 
     authorized by law--''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3650.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body is aware of the scope of the 
tragedy and destruction that Hurricane Katrina inflicted on the gulf 
coast region, and Congress has already taken several steps to bring 
relief to the affected States and their people. In addition to the 
thousands of private residences and businesses destroyed or rendered 
uninhabitable by the hurricane and subsequent floods, many entities of 
the Federal Government located in that region may not be able to 
operate for a time period that remains uncertain.
  The creation and maintenance of a court system that allows citizens 
to adjudicate disputes is a fundamental responsibility of government. 
The purpose of H.R. 3650 is to authorize Federal courts to conduct 
business outside of their statutorily defined geographic domains during 
times of emergency. It is critical that Congress enact the legislation 
expeditiously so that the affected courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Alabama may continue to function in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
  The text of H.R. 3650 is substantially similar to section 15 of H.R. 
1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Restoration Act of 2005, 
which the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
reported to the full Committee on the Judiciary on June 30.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for this legislation became tragically apparent 
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact 
of these disasters on court operations, particularly in New York City. 
In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining 
district or circuit might more readily and safely be available to court 
personnel, litigants, jurors, and the public than a facility at the 
place of holding court within the district. This is especially true in 
major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, D.C., Dallas, 
and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts of more 
than one judicial district.
  This legislation is also needed to address natural disasters. The 
recent impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Federal courts in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama has increased the urgency of congressional 
action. Where court operations cannot be transferred to other divisions 
within the affected judicial district due to widespread flooding and 
destruction, judges must be empowered to shift court proceedings 
temporarily into a neighboring judicial district.
  The advent of electronic court record systems will facilitate the 
implementation of this authority by providing judges, court staff, and 
attorneys with remote access to case documents. The bill authorizes 
circuit, district, and bankruptcy courts that conduct special sessions 
outside of their respective geographic boundaries upon a finding that 
because of emergency conditions, no locations within the boundaries of 
those courts are reasonably available where such special sessions could 
be held.
  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, or AO, is required to 
notify the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, as well as the 
Marshals Service when a court issues an order to conduct an emergency 
session. The AO must also follow up no later than 180 days after such 
an order expires by submitting a brief report to both committees 
summarizing why the order was issued, its duration, its impact on 
litigants, and its cost to the judiciary.
  The bill specifies that criminal trials may not be conducted outside 
the State in which a crime has been committed unless a defendant 
otherwise consents. This is consistent with the provisions of article 
III of the Constitution and the sixth amendment. With this one 
exception, a Federal court is empowered to conduct all business in a 
special session outside a district that it might otherwise conduct 
during a regular session.
  Given these constitutional constraints, however, jurors in criminal 
trials may only be summoned from ``any part of the district in which 
the crime has been committed,'' unless a defendant agrees to be tried 
by jurors from the district in which the court is holding a special 
session.
  Finally, United States magistrate judges are currently subject to 
certain territorial limitations on their powers imposed by the Federal 
Magistrates Act. The bill clarifies that magistrate judges can also 
participate in the emergency extraterritorial sessions of the district 
courts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation to return a measure of continuity to the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina and the Federal Court system that serves them.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Justice 
Department in support of this legislation.

         Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, 
           Office of the Assistant Attorney General
                                Washington, DC, September 7, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the views of the 
     Department on H.R. 3650, ``The Federal Emergency Special 
     Sessions Act of 2005.'' We support swift enactment of this 
     legislation.
       This bill is drawn from other legislation currently being 
     considered in the Congress that will permit Federal courts to 
     conduct business in other locations in the event of an 
     emergency situation. The need for this bill has been clearly 
     demonstrated by the recent catastrophe caused by Hurricane 
     Katrina, which has already caused extreme disruption to the 
     courts. Passing this bill on an emergency basis will permit 
     the Federal Courts to

[[Page 19661]]

     return to the Nation's critical business more quickly and 
     more easily.
       The Department already has commented on similar provisions 
     in prior legislation and some of our prior comments have been 
     addressed in this bill. In future legislation, we will 
     continue to seek refinement of the law in this area, 
     particularly as it relates to the critical need for 
     consultation and coordination between the Judiciary and the 
     Marshals Service in the event of any serious emergency.
       Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. The 
     Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the 
     perspective of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to submission of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                             William E. Moschella,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I, too, Mr. Speaker, join the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary in rising in support of this legislation. One of the many 
effects of the terrible tragedy resulting from Hurricane Katrina, one 
of the worst in our history, is the problem that the Federal 
courthouses in the region are flooded, preventing countless civil and 
criminal cases from proceeding. This legislation would permit the 
circuit courts, the district courts, magistrates, and the bankruptcy 
courts to all conduct proceedings outside their normal jurisdictions in 
times of emergency. These courts are, in many instances, closed as we 
meet today in Washington.
  Terrorist attacks and natural disasters can render unusable the 
Federal courthouses. Along with the tragic humanitarian results of such 
events, the administration of justice would come to a halt, preventing 
citizens from exercising their rights in court. In such circumstances, 
the chief judge of the court or judicial council of the circuit court 
could order the court proceedings to be conducted at any other place 
within the United States.
  Upon such an order, the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts would notify Congress of the reasons. Also, within 180 days of 
the termination of the special session, the Administrative Office would 
notify us of the order's duration, its impact on litigants, and the 
cost to the judiciary.
  This bill, H.R. 3650, further provides that jurors for civil cases 
may come from either the original or the temporary jurisdiction of the 
court. With respect to criminal cases, the legislation preserves the 
sixth amendment rights of defendants by limiting the jury pool to the 
district where the crime is committed, unless the defendant consents 
otherwise.
  There is an issue not addressed in the bill, and that is who would 
pay for the parties, including criminal defendants, to travel to the 
new location. Presumably, because a public function is at issue, the 
government should pay such expenses. It would be untenable for the 
courts and prosecutors to travel at government expense while defendants 
are left to fend for themselves in times of disaster. I am hoping that 
this can be corrected. There may be due process and sixth amendment 
violations if we force defendants to pay their own way to a distant 
courthouse. I hope to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate 
and the chairman of our committee in the House in the coming weeks to 
ensure that this oversight is properly resolved.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that we in the Congress must 
do more, much more, to alleviate the effects of Hurricane Katrina. 
Thousands of people may be forced to seek bankruptcy protection, but 
now will be subjected to the onerous and creditor friendly provisions 
of the newly enacted bankruptcy law, including its means test, which 
goes into effect on October 17. Victims of disasters and other 
tragedies, I think, ought be exempt from such rigid requirements.
  We have also heard countless reports of price gouging at gas 
stations. Big oil says the pipelines and refineries are down, thus 
limiting supply and increasing prices, but somehow they still continue 
to reap record profits. Along with a number of my colleagues, I have 
called upon the Federal Trade Commission to investigate this 
profiteering.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3650, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Special 
Sessions Act of 2005, deserves the support of every Member in this 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
makes a good point relative to the reimbursement of travel and 
subsistence expenses of parties, particularly those who may be 
indigent, and I think that we ought to look at this issue as time 
progresses, basically in seeing how far away criminal trials have to be 
moved away from New Orleans and the other places on the gulf coast 
where the courts are either impaired or not able to function in their 
chosen venues.
  However, I would point out that the Office of General Counsel For the 
Administrative Office of the Courts advises that jurors may obtain 
reimbursement for mileage, subsistence, and lodging expenses under this 
bill just as they may under normal circumstances. Similarly, there is 
the payment of travel and subsistence expenses for witnesses who will 
be available during the emergency special sessions under the bill.
  As far as the parties are concerned, particularly the indigent ones, 
I can give the gentleman from Michigan my assurance that we all will 
continue to work with the Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, the appropriators, and the Senate on this point. I think the 
thing that we have got to do now is to get this bill enacted into law 
as quickly as possible so that the courts can be up and running to do 
their business even though their current facilities may still be under 
water.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, the 
Internet, and Intellectual Property.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3650, the Federal 
Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005. H.R. 3650 authorizes 
Federal courts to conduct business outside of their geographic 
jurisdictions during times of emergency. Congress must enact this 
legislation immediately so that the affected courts in the gulf region 
can continue to operate in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
  Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged, perhaps ravaged is a better 
word, Federal courthouses in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. We 
must act with a sense of urgency. To illustrate why, consider the 
Eastern Judicial District of Louisiana, where operations are currently 
suspended.
  There is virtually no Federal district court presence there. Judges 
and court staff are physically scattered throughout Louisiana and other 
States. But crime in the district, assault, rape, and robbery, has not 
taken the week off. Yet there is no court that can act and no judge to 
preside. Criminal defendants will walk if deadlines established in the 
Speedy Trial Act cannot be met. In other words, we must restore the 
rule of law in the Eastern District of Louisiana as well as elsewhere.

                              {time}  1645

  The bill contemplates that affected courts could use other facilities 
that are convenient and practicable to participants under the 
circumstances. The special circumstances allowing courts to operate 
outside their normal jurisdictions would continue only until the 
vacated courthouses could be restored for normal business activities.
  We need to enact H.R. 3650 as part of the initial effort to help the 
displaced citizens of the region get back on their feet.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
3650, as we are all aware, much if not all of the Gulf Coast region has 
been flooded by the devastating forces of Hurricane Katrina. I 
personally spent 4 days in shelters in and around the Houston area, so 
I

[[Page 19662]]

have first hand knowledge of the devastation this natural disaster has 
caused as well as what the evacuees are going through. In addition to 
the many problems that have resulted from the aftermath of this 
hurricane, many of the Federal courthouses in the region are flooded; 
thus, preventing countless civil and criminal cases from proceeding. 
Furthermore, many attorneys and court employees have been displaced, 
not only from their homes, but also from their jobs. H.R. 3650 would 
permit the circuit courts, district courts, magistrates, and bankruptcy 
courts to conduct proceedings outside their normal territorial 
jurisdictions in times of emergency.
  The bill further provides that jurors for civil cases may come from 
either the original or temporary jurisdiction of the court. With 
respect to criminal cases, the legislation preserves the Sixth 
Amendment rights of defendants by limiting the jury pool to the 
district where the crime is committed unless the defendant consents 
otherwise. While these are issues are important, the bill fails to 
address who would pay for the parties to the case to travel to the new 
location. Presumably because a public function is at issue, the 
government should pay such expenses. It would be untenable for the 
courts and prosecutors to travel at government expense while defendants 
are left to fend for themselves in times of disaster. There may be due 
process and Sixth Amendment violations if we force defendants to pay 
their own way to distant courthouses.
  In spite of my support for this bill, I hope the concerns I just 
mentioned can be worked out in the coming weeks as this bill moves 
forward. In closing, I strongly believe we must do much more to 
alleviate the effects of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people may be 
forced to seek bankruptcy protection but now will be subject to the 
onerous and creditor-friendly provisions of the newly-enacted 
bankruptcy law, including its means test. Victims of disasters and 
other tragedies should be exempt from such rigid requirements.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3650.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________