[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4667-4668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PAYING ATTORNEYS OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5551) to amend title 11, District of Columbia 
Official Code, to implement the increase provided under the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount of funds made 
available for the compensation of attorneys representing indigent 
defendants in the District of Columbia courts, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5551

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

     SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASE PROVIDED IN FUNDING FOR 
                   COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT 
                   DEFENDANTS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

       (a) Increase in Hourly Rate.--Section 11-2604(a), District 
     of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ``$65 per 
     hour'' and inserting ``$80 per hour''.
       (b) Increase in Caps on Total Compensation Paid for 
     Particular Cases.--Section 11-2604(b), District of Columbia 
     Official Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) The compensation to be paid to an attorney appointed 
     pursuant to this chapter shall not exceed the following 
     maximum amounts:
       ``(1) For representation of a defendant before the Superior 
     Court of the District of Columbia for misdemeanors or 
     felonies, the maximum amount set forth in section 3006A(d)(2) 
     of title 18, United States Code, for representation of a 
     defendant before the United States magistrate judge or the 
     district court for misdemeanors or felonies (as the case may 
     be).
       ``(2) For representation of a defendant before the District 
     of Columbia Court of Appeals, the maximum amount set forth in 
     section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, for 
     representation of a defendant in an appellate court.
       ``(3) For representation of a defendant in post-trial 
     matters for misdemeanors or felonies, the amount applicable 
     under paragraph (1) for misdemeanors or felonies (as the case 
     may be).''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     cases and proceedings initiated on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she might 
consume to the author of this legislation, the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
especially thank him for his alacrity and

[[Page 4668]]

the expert way in which he has carried this bill quickly to and through 
the process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a no-cost bill. Indeed, the appropriations for 
an increase in the amounts paid to these attorneys has been 
appropriated.
  This is another of those District of Columbia anomalies. The courts 
of the District of Columbia operate through payments from the 
appropriations of the Congress of the United States and the judges are 
Title I attorneys. Therefore, District of Columbia judges may not use 
the funds that have been appropriated to raise the hourly rate of these 
attorneys, who are essential to the functioning, particularly of the 
criminal justice system, but also of the civil justice system, in the 
District of Columbia. They supplement the Public Defender Service of 
the District of Columbia.
  These attorneys have not had their hourly rates raised since 2002, 
when they were set at $65 per hour. They have requested $80 per hour. 
They are being granted $80 an hour, this in spite of the fact that the 
rate of inflation has been between 3 and 4 percent a year. They, of 
course, had in mind that they went some years where their rates did not 
keep up with the rates of other attorneys who serve Federal courts. Of 
course, they recognize that we are not going to raise their rates every 
year, but this is what the Congress is willing to do at this time.
  It does seem to me that the last thing we want to do is to slow down 
in particular criminal justice processing in the District of Columbia, 
particularly where there are already funds from the Appropriations 
Committee available, and when the failure to spend them only comes from 
a jurisdictional technicality, where we and we alone can indeed 
authorize the spending of these funds.
  What H.R. 5551 does is simply accomplish this authorization. I am 
very, very grateful to Chairman Davis for bringing this bill forward so 
quickly.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I am pleased it 
has moved so quickly through the committee and is being considered by 
the House today.
  When I was chairman of the DC Subcommittee, Congress enacted 
legislation I sponsored known as the National Capital Revitalization 
and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. This law in part granted 
Congress authority over the District's court system in matters relating 
to public defender services. The law also amended the D.C. Home Rule 
Act to the same effect.
  H.R. 5551, authored by Ms. Norton, would authorize a provision of the 
D.C. Appropriations Act of 2008 which increased from $65 per hour to 
$80 per hour the amount of compensation for attorneys representing 
indigent clients before the District of Columbia Superior Court.
  The current compensation rate of $65 per hour was established in 
fiscal year 2002, an increase from the previous rate of $50 per hour. 
Attorneys representing indigents in similar cases before U.S. District 
Courts are compensated at a rate of $100 per hour. No opposition to 
this bill was raised, either during the committee hearing or at the 
committee markup.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank Ms. 
Norton for bringing this forward, and Chairman Waxman and Chairman 
Davis for moving this ahead so quickly. I think this needs to be 
enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, I stand with my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton 
from our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, in consideration 
of H.R. 5551, which will provide for a much-needed increase in the 
compensation paid to attorneys assigned to represent indigent clients 
in the DC court system.
  Congresswoman Norton and I introduced this measure on March 6, 2008. 
On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal 
Service, and the District of Columbia held a hearing to examine aspects 
of the legislation, and on March 13, 2008, the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform considered and passed the bill out of committee 
by voice vote.
  H.R. 5551 calls for an increase in the hourly pay rate from $65 to 
$80 for Criminal Adjusters Act, CJA attorneys, representing indigent 
defendants in the DC courts. The measure would also increase the caps 
on the total compensation paid to these attorneys per case type to be 
equal to the total compensation paid to attorneys representing similar 
clients in Federal Court.

                              {time}  1430

  The increased compensation rate for CJA attorneys practicing in DC 
courts would only apply to cases that proceeded or initiated on or 
after the date of enactment of the Act.
  Mr. Speaker, a core element of our unique democracy is the right and 
requirement that every citizen, regardless of income or socioeconomic 
class, be afforded adequate counsel or representation when confronting 
judicial proceedings. In fact, one of the most important decisions in 
this area of law was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, 
when it held that the Sixth Amendment required the government afford 
indigent defendants with competent counsel. The measure we have before 
us further reiterates this fundamental concept by helping to ensure 
that the DC court system is in a competitive position to attract the 
best and brightest lawyers to represent the indigent. And so, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5551.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5551.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________