[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13101-13103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4419) to update the financial disclosure 
requirements for judges of the District of Columbia courts, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4419

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Judicial Financial Transparency Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDGES OF 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

       (a) Requirements Described.--Section 11-1530, D.C. Official 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 11-1530. Financial statements

       ``(a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall 
     promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts 
     shall, within one year following the date of enactment of the 
     District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at 
     least annually thereafter, file with the Commission a report 
     containing the following information:
       ``(1)(A) The source, type and amount of the judge's income 
     which exceeds $200 (other than income from the United States 
     government and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for 
     the period covered by the report.
       ``(B) The source and type of the judge's spouse's income 
     which exceeds $1,000 (other than income from the United 
     States government and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) 
     for the period covered by the report.
       ``(C) The source and type of income which consists of 
     dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains received by the 
     judge and the judge's spouse during such period which exceeds 
     $200 in amount or value, and an indication of which of the 
     following categories the amount or value of such item of 
     income is within--
       ``(i) not more than $1,000,
       ``(ii) greater than 1,000 but not more than $2,500,
       ``(iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than $5,000,
       ``(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than $15,000,
       ``(v) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000,
       ``(vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000,
       ``(vii) greater than $100,000 but not more than $1,000,000,
       ``(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than 
     $5,000,000, or
       ``(ix) greater than $5,000,000.
       ``(2) The name and address of each private foundation or 
     eleemosynary institution, and of each business or 
     professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which the 
     judge was an officer, director, proprietor, or partner during 
     such period.
       ``(3) The identity and category of value (as set forth in 
     subsection (b)) of each liability of $10,000 or more owed by 
     the judge or by the judge and the judge's spouse jointly at 
     any time during such period.
       ``(4) The source and value of all gifts in the aggregate 
     amount or value of $250 or more from any single source 
     received by the judge during such period, except gifts from 
     the judge's spouse or any of the judge's children or parents.
       ``(5) The identity of each trust in which the judge held a 
     beneficial interest having a value of $10,000 or more at any 
     time during such period, and in the case of any trust in 
     which the judge held any beneficial interest during such 
     period, the identity, if known, of each interest in real or 
     personal property in which the trust held a beneficial 
     interest

[[Page 13102]]

     having a value of $10,000 or more at any time during such 
     period. If the judge cannot obtain the identity of the trust 
     interest, the judge shall request the trustee to report that 
     information to the Commission.
       ``(6) The identity and category of value (as set forth in 
     subsection (b)) of each interest in real or personal property 
     having a value of $10,000 or more which the judge owned at 
     any time during such period.
       ``(7) The amount or value and source of each honorarium of 
     $250 or more received by the judge and the judge's spouse 
     during such period.
       ``(8) The source and amount of all money, other than that 
     received from the United States government, received in the 
     form of an expense account or as reimbursement for 
     expenditures from any source aggregating more than $250 
     during such period.
       ``(9) The source and amount of all waivers or partial 
     waivers of fees or charges accepted by the judge on behalf of 
     the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, or guest 
     during such period.
       ``(b) For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (6) of subsection 
     (a), the categories of value set forth in this subsection 
     are--
       ``(1) not more than $15,000;
       ``(2) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000;
       ``(3) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000;
       ``(4) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000;
       ``(5) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000;
       ``(6) greater than $500,000 but not more than $1,000,000;
       ``(7) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000;
       ``(8) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than 
     $25,000,000;
       ``(9) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 
     $50,000,000; and
       ``(10) greater than $50,000,000.
       ``(c)(1) Reports filed pursuant to this section shall, upon 
     written request, and notice to the reporting judge for 
     purposes of making an application to the Commission for a 
     redaction pursuant to paragraph (2), be made available for 
     public inspection and copying within a reasonable time after 
     filing and during the period they are kept by the Commission 
     (in accordance with rules promulgated by the Commission), and 
     shall be kept by the Commission for not less than three 
     years.
       ``(2) This section does not require the public availability 
     of reports filed by a judge if upon application by the 
     reporting judge, a finding is made by the Commission that 
     revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger 
     that judge or a family member of that judge, except that a 
     report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph only--
       ``(A) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who 
     filed the report or a family member of that individual; and
       ``(B) for as long as the danger to such individual exists.
       ``(d) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of 
     Columbia court to file a report required by this section, or 
     the filing of a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful 
     misconduct in office and shall be grounds for removal from 
     office under section 11-1526(a)(2).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to reports filed under section 11-
     1530, D.C. Official Code, that cover periods beginning during 
     or after 2016.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PROBATE DIVISION TO USE MAGISTRATE 
                   JUDGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 11-1732(j)(5), District of 
     Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ``Family 
     Divisions'' and inserting ``Probate Divisions, and the Family 
     Court,''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 11-
     1732(j)(4)(A), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family 
     Court''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS TO ACCEPT 
                   CERTAIN TYPES OF PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types 
       of payments

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `electronic 
     funds transfer'--
       ``(1) means a transfer of funds, other than a transaction 
     by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, that is 
     initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, or 
     computer or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering, 
     instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit 
     or credit an account; and
       ``(2) includes point of sale transfers, automated teller 
     machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal of funds, 
     transfers initiated by telephone, and transfers resulting 
     from debit card transactions.
       ``(b) Authority to Accept Credit Card Payments and 
     Electronic Funds Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may 
     accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution, 
     bonds, and other payments to the courts by credit card or 
     electronic funds transfer.
       ``(2) Use of vendors and third party providers.--The 
     Executive officer--
       ``(A) may contract with a bank or credit card vendor, or 
     other third party provider, for purposes of accepting 
     payments by credit card or electronic funds transfer; and
       ``(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost 
     vendor for purposes of accepting such payments.
       ``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any contract 
     entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the 
     payment shall be responsible for covering any fee or charge 
     associated or imposed with respect to the method of payment.
       ``(4) Completion of payment.--If a person elects to make a 
     payment to the District of Columbia courts by a method 
     authorized under paragraph (1), the payment shall not be 
     deemed to be made until the courts receive the funds.
       ``(c) Authority to Accept Checks.--
       ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may 
     accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution, 
     bonds, and other payments to the courts by check.
       ``(2) Use of check guarantee vendor.--The Executive 
     Officer--
       ``(A) may contract with a check guarantee vendor for 
     purposes of accepting payments by check; and
       ``(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost 
     vendor for purposes of accepting such payments.
       ``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any contract 
     entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the 
     payment by check shall be responsible for covering any fee or 
     charge associated or imposed with respect to the method of 
     payment.
       ``(d) Liability for Non-payment.--If a check or other 
     method of payment, including payment by credit card, debit 
     card, or charge card, so received is not duly paid, or is 
     paid and subsequently charged back to the District of 
     Columbia courts, the person by whom such check or other 
     method of payment has been tendered shall remain liable for 
     the payment, to the same extent as if such check or other 
     method of payment had not been tendered.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, 
     District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments.''.

     SEC. 5. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY PERMITTED 
                   FOR CASES UNDER JURISDICTION OF SMALL CLAIMS 
                   AND CONCILIATION BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.

       (a) In General.--Section 11-1321, District of Columbia 
     Official Code, is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any case filed in the Superior Court of the 
     District of Columbia on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS IN 
                   EXCESS OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Criminal defense appointments.--Section 11-2604(c), 
     District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking 
     the last sentence and inserting the following: ``Each chief 
     judge may delegate such approval authority to an active or 
     senior judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.''.
       (2) Child abuse and neglect appointments.--Section 16-
     2326.01(f), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(f)(1)'' and inserting ``(f)'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``Each chief judge 
     may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior 
     judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any case or proceeding initiated 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4419, the District of Columbia Judicial 
Financial Transparency Act, which was introduced by my colleague from 
the District of Columbia, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. H.R. 4419 
would provide a more robust and open disclosure of judicial finances in 
the District.
  Currently, District judges are required to meet disclosure 
requirements

[[Page 13103]]

that are less rigorous than those mandated for Federal judges. H.R. 
4419 will help to close this disclosure gap. This bill will require 
judges to disclose sources of income for themselves and their spouses. 
This increased disclosure will help to strengthen an important pillar 
of our judicial system: the public's trust in an impartial judicial 
system.
  In order to ensure that those before the District's judicial system 
can be confident in its impartial nature, the bill also requires that 
the disclosures be made publicly available.
  The bill will require that disclosure reports be made available to 
the public for 3 years after they have been filed. H.R. 4419 will 
ensure compliance by making a failure to file or filing a fraudulent 
report an offense that is punishable by removal from office. This 
legislation will help to protect the public's faith in the integrity 
and impartiality of the District's judicial branch.
  H.R. 4419 is a good government bill, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill forward. I 
thank, especially, Chairman Chaffetz for his support in moving this 
bill through the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and now to 
the floor for consideration. I am also grateful to Ranking Member 
Elijah Cummings for his vital assistance as this bill moves forward. I 
thank Senator James Lankford, who once served with us on this committee 
and who introduced the companion bill in the Senate, which was already 
reported favorably by the Senate's Homeland Security & Governmental 
Affairs Committee in May of this year.
  My bill, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency 
Act, as amended, will provide much-needed transparency to the District 
of Columbia's local courts by enhancing financial disclosure 
requirements for D.C. court judges to make them more similar to the 
disclosure requirements that are already in place for Article III 
Federal judges. District of Columbia judges are Article I Federal 
judges.
  Although current law requires D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of 
Appeals judges to file annual financial reports, there was no 
requirement that all of this information be made public. For example, 
while judges are required to submit information about their incomes, 
investments, liabilities, and gifts--and we have no reason to believe 
that they have failed to do so--current law only makes public judges' 
connections to charities, private organizations, businesses, as well as 
honorariums that are more than $300. My bill would make all of this 
information, except for the judges' personally identifiable 
information, available for public inspection.
  This bill is particularly necessary because a 2014 survey by the 
Center for Public Integrity, which took a comprehensive look at each 
State's judicial financial disclosure rules, gave the District a 
failing grade. D.C. court judges already submit enough financial 
information to improve the District's standing. My bill would simply 
make it public.
  Like Senator Lankford's bill, my bill also includes provisions that 
will give D.C. courts new authorities to improve their operations. 
These provisions would authorize magistrate judges to serve in the 
probate division, which would help address the increasing number of 
adult guardianship cases; allow the courts to accept payments by credit 
card and check--imagine how late we are in getting to that--which would 
reduce administrative costs and increase efficiency; increase the 
maximum amount in controversy for small claims from $5,000 to $10,000, 
which would be the first increase in 20 years, would ensure access to 
the courts for plaintiffs with limited means; and authorize the chief 
judges to delegate their authority to approve reimbursements to court-
appointed attorneys.

                              {time}  1500

  Currently the chief judges must personally approve these 
reimbursements, which adds to their administrative workload and diverts 
attention and resources away from more critical issues facing our 
courts.
  Congress has the jurisdiction over our court system because, as I 
have indicated, it has jurisdiction over all Article I courts and, 
therefore, the authority to make the necessary improvements.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4419, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________